×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Military Launches YouTube Channel

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the you-can't-stop-the-signal dept.

Censorship 348

Jenga717 writes "The US military has launched its own channel on YouTube, in efforts to shift the media's focus of Iraq from a negative to a more positive light, and to 'counter the messages of anti-American sites.' From the article: 'The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ... and is only edited for reasons of time or content too graphic to be shown on YouTube ... And while all the clips currently posted have been shot by the military's combat cameramen, soldiers and marines have been invited to submit their own clips.' The question is, where are they supposed to submit them? Starting 'on or about 14 May 2007', the Department of Defense will block troop access to Myspace, Youtube, MTV, and more sites, due to a 'growing concern for our unclassified DoD Internet, known as the NIPRNET'." More commentary below.The troops will be unable to access these sites from any computer on the DoD network, yet are still able to access them from their home computers — which they can't use on the DoD network. So why the censorship? The DoD cites security reasons, but the Commander of Global Network Operations (DoD's Joint Task Force)"has noted a significant increase in the use of DoD network resources tied up by individuals visiting certain recreational Internet sites." The PDF released by the DoD reminds troops that this "benefits not only you, your fellow Servicemembers, and Civilian employees, but preserves our vital networks for conducting official DoD business in peace and war." Sounds like quite a sticky situation."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

348 comments

Interesting (3, Informative)

andy666 (666062) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105743)

They have done other things like this with other media formats - like Soldier Radio in the 50's.

What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106041)

What the anti-war and anti-troops (two distinct, sometimes linked groups with separate agendas) don't want is a source of public information that they cannot control or spin for their own purposes.

Aside from the obvious example of Fox News, all other TV news outlets have a consistent negative slant on the efforts in Iraq.

It scares the Hell out of the George Sorros backed loons that there might actually be an information source they cannot control.

Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... (-1, Troll)

Evilest Doer (969227) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106477)

It scares the Hell out of the George Sorros backed loons that there might actually be an information source they cannot control.
Sigh. Another right-wing neo-Nazi nutbug exhibiting this [wikipedia.org] psychological problem.

The truth (-1, Troll)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105757)

If you want positive feed back then don't do fucked up stuff.

You can't claim to be whiter than white if you're rolling around in pig shit and charcoal all day.

Re:The truth (3, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105873)

The only way to get positive feedback is to not exist, at least if you're in authority.
 
How many bad cops are there, really? But there are plenty of people that paint them all with the same brush. I'm not saying that the military is filled with righteous humanitarians who just get stuck in a rough spot every now and again. But the fact is that bad news sells and good news doesn't. When given the choice between bad news and good news, the bad news will win every time. That having been said, I don't think the DoD should be in the business of making sure their side of the story gets told. I know people over there now, and have few friends that have made it back. It's still a war, they're still in the military, and the story isn't going to be all rosy. Or all bad.

Not really the question to ask... (0, Troll)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106069)

"How many bad cops are there, really?"

That's not really the right question to ask if you want to make your point. It's pretty well accepted that the question isn't of how many bad cops are their, but one of how bad is each individual cop, as well as how bad are they on average.

Re:The truth (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106147)

Actually, I think people who are attracted to positions of authority are, in fact, assholes.

That being said, the people in the military are not actually in a position of authority.

Thus, it's entirely possible to paint the military in a good light while letting the authority decisions be painted in a bad light, and I think that this type of PR works perfectly for their target market: new future soldiers.

Re:The truth (0, Troll)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106179)

BS. The news media concealed atrocities in Vietnam, such as the destruction of Huan, and the widespread use of defoliants that killed thousands of children. The bombardment of Laos, and the creation of the world's biggest minefield were all ignored. They ignored the death squads in El Salvidor, and are currently ignoring the genocide in Sudan. The NY Times had the balls to publish a picture of US Soldiers attacking a hospital in violation of the Geneva Convention without mentioning that they had been committing a war crime. The American news media is a propaganda arm of the US government.(Source: Noam Chomsky). No mention of the fact that we assisted Saddam with the crimes we executed him for has been made, or that the only chemical weapons he ever had were the ones that we gave him.

Re:The truth (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106217)

How many bad cops are there, really?

Hunderds of thousands. It's more the norm than an exception. It's like they say, there's a fine line between being a cop and being a criminal. Both careers attract the same sort of people.

Re:The truth (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106427)

To paraphrase Douglas Adams: 'Anyone who wants a position of authority should under no circumstances be allowed to do the job'

Isn't that the definition of.... (5, Interesting)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105761)

"The US military has launched its own channel on YouTube, in efforts to shift the media's focus of Iraq from a negative to a more positive light, and to 'counter the messages of anti-American sites.'

Isn't that called "propaganda"?

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19105837)

Only if your a terrorist.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19105863)

If my a terrorist?

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106165)

I love you. err... ``I lovu

Invasion is Liberation (0, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105897)

Theft is Investment

Destruction is Development

We're not killing babies, we're preventing terror.

Fuck 'em all, and the horse they rode in on. 50 years from now, when the USA is a pathetic, second-rate banana republic, the world will marvel how the people let it happen.

Re:Invasion is Liberation (2, Funny)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106137)

50 years from now, when the USA is a pathetic, second-rate banana republic, the world will marvel how the people let it happen.
Now I did know since quite some time that e.g. Europe is /a few hours/ ahead of the USoA, but 50 years...? news to me.

Bob Herbert: (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106449)

...According to the most recent government figures, 37 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold, which is $19,971 a year for a family of four. That's one out of every eight Americans, and many of them are children.

More than 90 million Americans, close to a third of the entire population, are struggling to make ends meet on incomes that are less than twice the official poverty line. In my book, they're poor. ...

The number of poor people in America has increased by five million over the past six years, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to historic proportions. The richest one percent of Americans got nearly 20 percent of the nation's income in 2005, while the poorest 20 percent could collectively garner only a measly 3.4 percent. [nytimes.com]


So, what makes America more secure? "Fighting" "terrorists", or using the 150 Billion to support those at home?

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (2, Insightful)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105865)

No. It's called responding to the propaganda that has been done by the media for the past 4 years.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19105885)

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
"Mission Accomplished"
"Let Freedom Reign!"

Who is spouting unfounded propoganda, again?

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (2, Interesting)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105943)

This is exactly what I mean. Nobody really has a CLUE what is going on right now in Iraq because the media is doing a horrible job depicting what's happening. Negativity sells, and they know that - especially when it comes to America and Bush and republicans.

If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing - that we were being driven out of the country. Then when the military LIBERATED Iraq from an evil dictator who had murdered thousands upon thousands of people during his life, all of the channels besides Fox News made it seem like we conquered them, like we were raping their women, like we were killing innocent people on purpose.

I'm sorry, I know that everyone here at slashdot disagrees with me, but luckily I have some karma built up, so I can say something like this.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106107)

It seems pretty clear to me that there's a civil war going on Iraq at the moment. Are you honestly trying to dispute that? I don't mean this on the level of whether you consider it a "civil war", but are you disputing the fact that there's a bloody conflict going on in Iraq at the moment that claims civilian lives nearly every day?

Also, your second paragraph is either an emotional appeal or a non-sequitur. It's perfectly possible to remove an evil dictator from power while also raping, looting and pillaging—you've simply used the first sentence to provide justification for the act and the second sentence to focus on consequences of the act. (The issue of whether a country is "liberated" or "conquered" is, admittedly, a nontrivial, political one. However, when a country invades another, removes an oppressive regime, and then replaces it with a government friendly to the invading country, both words may very well be said to apply—the invading country has both liberated the invaded country from that dictator, and secured itself a position of power in the new political situation(which is bluntly what conquest is all about—power, not necessarily explicit flag-planting).)

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106157)

Nobody really has a CLUE what is going on right now in Iraq because the media is doing a horrible job depicting what's happening.

OK, if you are privy to this secret inside scoop that nobody else knows about, maybe you could share with us exactly what about the current situation you find so wonderful.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106211)

It's a little something that I have enjoyed my entire life. Something that Iraqis will enjoy in the near future (unless we pull our troops out immediately) - Freedom.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (1)

Fex303 (557896) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106361)

If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing...[snip]
Can you explain precisely how we're winning? We've blown hundreds of billions of dollars, sent thousands of young people away to die, and increased the momentum behind Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist groups.

The Iraqi people have gone from a horrible dictatorship to civil war and chaos, and around 65,000 of them have been killed in the process. (Twenty times more than were killed in 9/11, to put things into perspective - Iraqi's have endured the equivalent of twenty 9/11s.) Living conditions are far worse for the vast majority of people, and democracy that was being installed there doesn't really seem to have gotten out of the gate.

Tell me again how we (or any other group) are winning.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106387)

Basically all you've mentioned is the hardships that come with stuff like this. How many people died in the American revolutionary war against Great Britain? zero?

It sucks, yes. But what most people don't understand is that it's worth it. The only way this will all result in a failure is if the troops pull out before the Iraqis are ready to take over.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (3, Insightful)

jbengt (874751) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106429)

"If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing"

Uh . . . I did watch any channel other than Fox during the first part of the war, and I was never put under the impression that we were losing any battles, let alone the war.

But I saw members of the UN inspection team state that they didn't think Sadaam had wepaons of mass destruction. I was presented with ex-generals commenting that we weren't going in with enough troops to keep control, which turned out to be true. I heard people speaking against de-Baathicization, because if firing all of them it would be impossible to replace the compentent staff, and also because too many people would be out of work, desperate for money, and with plenty of time on their hands to do mischief; both of those turned out to be true. I heard comments on how we weren't prepared to protect assets like national treasures, infrastructure, and amories (which is related to the above) - also turned out to be true.

From the administration all I got was lies and misdirections about why America was starting a war and how successful it was.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (1)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106443)

Then when the military LIBERATED Iraq from an evil dictator who had murdered thousands upon thousands of people during his life,
Wow, with a statement like that I see the propaganda is working just as planned.

So, does the murders he committed justify the thousands upon thousands [iraqbodycount.net] of people we killed to 'LIBERATE' them?

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (3, Insightful)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105907)

Maybe no one defined the word propoganda to you when you were younger, but in general, propoganda is used to alter the perception of the public for a specific purpose, while reporting is stating what is going on in the world in as objective a manner as possible. (arguments of corporate sponsorship influencing media aside)

Now I'm not saying bias doesn't exist in the various media outlets, but of the two entities (media and military) which has a history of, and a purpose for, propoganda?

Saying that the military is being objective and the media is the propoganda.. that seems to go a bit beyond objectivity.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105975)

The media is run by politicians and by people who have political agendas. Does that answer your question? The media has a purpose for propaganda. The military just does what it's told. They don't have to defend their actions on a large scale. (on a small scale, yes, but that involves specific people who are abusive - not the military in general).

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (2, Insightful)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106105)

The military just does what it's told.

Like put up Youtube sites depiciting military actions in a positive light?

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106241)

Now I'm not saying bias doesn't exist in the various media outlets, but of the two entities (media and military) which has a history of, and a purpose for, propoganda?

The military does not have a need for propaganda, they've got guns which can be made to make people agree with anything.
Politicians however, are a different matter.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (4, Informative)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105923)

Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

I have tagged the article as such.

Propaganda? Na... (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105963)

Its entertainment! War is the best game out there!

And if you get blown up by an IED, just hit replay and you're good to go.

Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (1)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106251)

The best thing about propaganda is that once you realize what they want you to think, you can begin to debate and think about the opposite.

That depends on how you define it... (5, Insightful)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106353)

Propaganda is a funny word with a million connotations. Sure, this could be called propaganda, as could much of the reporting coming out of Iraq from various outlets.

Wars are hard to cover, and the mish-mash conflict/counter-insurgency that is Iraq is no exception. The problems are similar to those of any other big, contentious political conflict, such as elections, only now people are shooting each other, a reporter's access is often limited to a certain area and frequently only to one side, and the emotions run about 100 times stronger.

I like the use of the word "propaganda" in Spanish better, as a word used to describe any advertisement as well as its perhaps less savory meanings. Propaganda tries to influence people, yes, but it can play a role in informing people. A car ad, for example, informs me about say the gas mileage of a car and attempts to convince me to buy the car at the same time. The information regarding gas mileage is accurate and factual, but it is not simply handed to me straight - it's done in a persuasive manner.

News "reporting" has become more of the same, as the 24 hour networks seem to have a system where supposedly unbiased reports - and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all biased - are viewed, and then commentary from a pundit whose main qualification is having an opinion is solicited, and this commentary runs just as long if not longer than the report itself. I for one am tired of hearing Jack Cafferty, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs (I particularly dislike Dobbs, but that's another post), Hannity and Colmes blabber on.

The problems are not simply ones of bias - it's a lack of depth, and this problem exists on the supply and demand sides as well. American news outlets have consistently cut back on international news for well over a decade now, and other than a few select cities worldwide most simply don't have correspondents overseas. The results of this problem could easily be seen in the recent Israeli-Lebanese (well, whoever exactly the other party was - it was pretty nebulous) conflict last summer. The major wire services, news outlets, etc. simply didn't have many reporters in Beirut to keep track of things. They flew out their usual talking heads and depended on the information of local stringers, who often have their own agendas and biases built in. A textbook example of this would be the Adnan Hajj photography controversy [wikipedia.org] - a local stringer who doctored photos and used misleading captions to get his point across.

Keeping reporters overseas is expensive, and combat embeds - the safest method of transportation for journalists in Iraq - isn't exactly cheap, either. If you notice, television coverage in the U.S. is often interspersed with clips of combat and other footage from the Iraq conflict recorded during the invasion over four years ago. Or from the latest 12 - 24 hour embed a reporter did with a unit, which is hardly sufficient time to get to know things. Troops also hate these short embeds, something I say from personal experience not as a soldier but from long discussions I had with a French friend talking about his military experience in Afghanistan as a unit commander. Reporters often kept his group from getting the job done. After putting up with a few embeds, he told all those who followed that if fighting occurred they were on their own - and he sure hoped they brought weapons and ammunition.

But there's another reason for this lack of depth of coverage: Americans don't really care about what's going on in the world. Fewer than 20% of Americans have a passport at any given time, and I'd wager that 4 years into a massive troop deployment in Iraq more than 50% of the public still couldn't find the place on a map or identify its capital city. Americans tend to have strong moral feelings about war in general, good and bad, but few and far between are those actually informed. This apathy combined with the extremely short attention span of the American public (Don Imus said a naughty word! Paris Hilton goes to jail! Ponies!) leaves little incentive for mass media to work effectively in Iraq or anywhere else - why spend tens of millions to outfit a great journalistic team to go to Iraq and file reports that people don't care too much about when you can just buy the latest People and rehash its contents and make big bucks? Reporting with depth does exist on this issue - pick up the latest Foreign Affairs, Economist, Christian Science Monitor, Atlantic Monthly, or other periodical that takes longer than 30 seconds to peruse and isn't dominated with pictures and cheeky graphics.

I don't blame the U.S. military for trying to put its story out. The mass media has largely dropped the ball, and many outlets like CNN have shown no compunction about airing videos of Insurgents shooting U.S. troops, shooting down helicopters, propaganda and training videos, and also statements from insurgent leaders while generally limiting their own videos to those that portray the U.S. in a negative light. The relationship of terrorists to the media has been necessary for the former to get its message out and helpful to the later to improve ratings (as is well documented in many scholarly books on the subject, such as Bruce Hoffman's Inside Terrorism [amazon.com]). I don't mind seeing primary source material, and anyone looking at a video should know it's been edited - "unbiased" news sources routinely edit huge amounts of their film. Perhaps some of the events will be staged for the viewing audience, but isn't every news conference the same?

What I do think is hilarious, though, is the Slashdot editor's apparent unwillingness to put a link to the channel in the story itself. That's just laughable.

See All of you! (0, Flamebait)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105773)

US soldiers only give flowers to children, play games with them and everyone loves them!

They would never stack prisioners in a naket pyrimid and abuse them, or kill anyone running to them, or other nasty things!

See proof we are there to help! we are friendly! we just want to HUG you!

Not saying that the other side is not nasty, but we are sugar coating it pretty damned hard.

The 3 guys I know that finally came back from combat, all with purple hearts and one will never walk again have told me that it is HELL over there for everyone involved.

Re:See All of you! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105887)

US soldiers only give flowers to children, play games with them and everyone loves them!
If I want to see stuff like that I'll watch old reruns of Scooby Doo cartoons.

Re:See All of you! (4, Interesting)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106199)

The abuses are isolated. The enlisted men that are honestly "good guys" trying to to good in a bad situation are many and plenty. The crap reasons that we're over there is another story but the everyday soldiers bearing the brunt of it take it really well and do a lot of good. I agree its a fubar situation but the average enlisted guy dealing with it over there is doing a damn fine job.

Re:See All of you! (3, Interesting)

Shihar (153932) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106223)

I would say it is safe to say that the number of soldiers handing out candy and flowers vastly outnumbers the numbers that are stacking up naked Iraqi's in pyramids.

Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea. Not every soldier that goes to Iraq raps a few women and then guns down some kids. Hell, the entire 'surge' is based around the idea of sacrificing more Americans to save more Iraqis. Right now US soldiers are setting practically undefended in outposts all over Baghdad instead of turtling up in their bases and air striking anything that looks threatening. The point of the shift in strategy was basically to put Americans more in the line of fire and restrain the force they can use so that fewer civilians die. They are focusing on civilian protection instead of force protection.

I don't think people fully realize what this means. We KNOW that more soldiers will die as we expose them in an effort to defend the civilian population. I am sympathetic that the army is a tad irritated at being called baby killers while everyone ignores the fact that they are paying in American blood to reduce civilian casualties inflicted by both collateral damage and intentional terrorist/sectarian attacks.

Now, it can certainly be argued that this is a complete waste of American lives. It can certainly be argued that we would be better off to saying we are sorry for kicking over their iron fisted dictator that kept them you line, write out a big check, and tell them good luck on not committing genocide against each other. That said, give the army some credit. They are being told to pay in their own blood to achieve some political objective. If they want to show that they do more then gun down civilians, let them. God forbid anything other then tragedy be reported from Iraq.

Re:See All of you! (3, Insightful)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106417)

You make me sick. The number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines over there doing good things for the locals VASTLY outnumbers your disgusting stereotypes. Yes that shit happened and more than a few service members we upset by it too, because ignorant asshats like you start running around proclaiming that everyone is doing it. How much charity have you done for the people over there? I have known airmen that have setup donation programs for the kids out there for blankets, food, clothing. These men and women giving up their precious off duty time (which you have terribly little of out there) and their own money to reach out to the local community and help. I bet you don't know anything about the parts of northern Iraq where the locals have announced that for every American killed or kidnapped in their community they will hunt down and kill 100 of these little militia members running around causing problems.

I'm sorry for the 3 people you know that came back. I know a few that didn't come back, and I know hundreds who have been over there for months to years. I suppose the fact that I was there makes me a baby killing, civilian raping, prisoner torturing asshole too huh? Well I'm certainly glad that the people like you are far away from the field and with no weapons, the 15-20 iraqi locals riding on a flatbed doing random work on the base (trash, sandbags, etc) all started waving and smiling at our group on my first day there. I would much rather be surrounded by the people that see that the military is doing its best to try and help (far from the politicians goals).

Go watch your local news and see how many 'good deeds' type stuff gets reported, and then see how many murderous rampages and serial killings get reported, and how much coverage each gets. Then ask "gee, I wonder what more people watch and where they get their ratings". Then think for just one moment "I wonder if the news channels are doing the same thing with the war that they do with our local news, showing the most disturbing and horrific things for ratings and glossing over the mundane and good because noone pays attention to it".

Why the propaganda? (0, Offtopic)

Rix (54095) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105781)

The military has no business telling people what to think. The consensus is that this is a failed mission (as the world warned the US it would be) and they have to live with that.

Re:Why the propaganda? (1)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105877)

Failed? Didn't you see that "Mission Accomplished" speech that was on the news a few years ago? We must have won.

I never quite understood though why a "victory" speech about a war in a virtually landlocked country was made from an aircraft carrier sitting in an ocean hundreds miles away. Besides, according to Bush the people of Baghdad would great us (and therefore him) "with open arms".

Re:Why the propaganda? (3, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105901)

The military didn't come up with this hairbrained Iraq scheme you moron. The government did, and so far they have done a great job telling idiots like you what to think.

The military is a spiked club, they dont think they just do. And what they do is the will of the Executive and Legislative branches. If you have such a issue with the militarizes actions why dont you get off your fat ass bitching on a computer and let your state representative and the moron you voted into office KNOW that. And if they dont listen then you need to get every single person you know to vote them out.

The only people who we have to blame for this whole war disaster is the entire population of the United States. The republican supporters for being idiotic sheep, and the loony ass democratic supporters for doing a shit job and showing the idiotic sheep exactly what they are and coming up with a solution instead of just saying "the republicans screwed up." If the democrats had actually HAD a plan to get the troops out last election, there wouldnt have been a re-election of Bush.

Re:Why the propaganda? (0, Redundant)

Boronx (228853) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106003)

That's right, and if Bush had lied us into a disasterous war, presided over a torture regime, destroyed Habeus Corpus, run roughshod over a bunch of other cherished civil rights, compromised national security, bungled the war against Al Qaeda and drove federal spending to absurd heights, then he wouldn't have been re-elected, either!

Re:Why the propaganda? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106095)

I JUST POINTED OUT the fact that the democrats did a piss poor job at SHOWING REPUBLICANS these facts...

The last election? (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106103)

Okay. The last election was in 2006. There was no presidential race that year. A lot of Republicans got voted out of both houses of Congress, so I think some Americans are losing patience with the Republican war strategy. Congress attempted to pass a defense bill with a named exit date this year: that's another sign.
The last presidential election was 2004. Maybe we should've known to kick our current president out by then: I mean, Fahrenheit 9/11 was already released. But, even though things looked bad then, they looked better then than they do now. (When did we learn about Abu Ghraib, anyway?)

Re:They don't think? (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106285)

They think...that's why we have generals, which in turn, is why someone like the president *should* rely on feedback from these strategic positions. If there's any absence of thought regarding Iraq, it's certainly not with the military - it's with the commander-in-chief and his neo-con know-it-alls.

I'm not following that. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106299)

The only people who we have to blame for this whole war disaster is the entire population of the United States. The republican supporters for being idiotic sheep, and the loony ass democratic supporters for doing a shit job and showing the idiotic sheep exactly what they are and coming up with a solution instead of just saying "the republicans screwed up."

And what about those of us who opposed this war BEFORE we invaded?

Re:I'm not following that. (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106489)

and the loony ass democratic supporters for doing a shit job and showing the idiotic sheep exactly what they are and coming up with a solution instead of just saying "the republicans screwed up."
That sums it up right there.

You opposed it, but you did nothing to sell your POV. Therefor your also to blame, just like I am to blame for exactly the same reason.

If i recall correctly, more than half us voting (1)

Tran (721196) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106423)

in the last presidential election did not vote for Bush in 2004, nor did we really in 2000.

Re:Why the propaganda? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19105929)

The military has no business telling people what to think. The consensus is that this is a failed mission (as the world warned the US it would be) and they have to live with that.

The military isn't the one that said that we should invade Iraq. All CIA and defense intelligence reports supported the worldwide consensus that Iraq could be contained and that the WMD reports were not conclusive. But Bush and Cheney's lackeys liberally interpreted those reports and suppressed others to make their case to invade Iraq. The military isn't part of the political decision process that failed us, nor did we empower them with any means to do so. The military is just trying to win an unwinnable war that they were forced into by the President and Congress.

If you want to blame someone, blame those who doctored the intelligence briefings and who exaggerated the claims. Blame those who gave the President the power to wage war without any checks and balances. Blame the new political class who has not only discarded isolationalism, but has completely embraced interventionalism. Blame those who ignored President Eisenhower's extremely blunt warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex (his speech at the end of his Presidency). Blame those who think we need to keep a standing army of the same size we had during the Cold War. Don't blame the 18 or 20 year old kids who are over there because or system failed them. If you are an American, then you are part of the system that *ordered* those kids to go over there and die. Don't blame them when you don't like the results that your system chose.

Re:Why the propaganda? (2, Insightful)

Boronx (228853) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106023)

If you think the generals aren't up to their ears in this fiasco, you're living in a fantasy land.

Re:Why the propaganda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106121)

If you think the generals aren't up to their ears in this fiasco, you're living in a fantasy land.
Well, I know that Bush and his lackeys were responsible. I have no evidence that the generals did anything other than what they were ordered to do. Do you?

Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, and small minds talk about people--Hyman G. Rickover.

You have failed to comprehend that the events in Iraq were not caused by individuals but instead were caused by a failed political system that fed off of itself. Iraq was not invaded because we had corrupt generals (which you haven't demonstrated). It was invaded because our political class felt that it had the right to invade a sovereign country that had not been proven to pose a direct threat to the national security of the United States.

You are just like the people who think that the only thing that needs to be fixed in the US is to fire the people who allowed it to occur (like Bush and Cheney). Then everything will be alright. This is incredibly naïve. Bush and Cheney were allowed to gain power because of the underlying cause. They didn't bring it with them. Bush and Cheney are the lackeys of interventionalism and the military-industrial complex, not the other way around.

Re:Why the propaganda? (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105957)

If only Bush had choked to death on that pretzel, the US might not have how many dead? I stopped paying attention to the media after they said like 3000-4000.

Re:Why the propaganda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106257)

No fair! So he might have a drinking problem. But. We. Should'nt. Talk. About. It/

Points of view (2, Interesting)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106007)

Even if the military is spreading propaganda, it is always good to listen to all sides in a debate. Even if you disagree with someone its a great idea to learn why they hold a certain belief. Once you understand someone's point of view, it is easier to persuade them to change their mind or to argue against them. Its even possible that you might agree with them.

Heres a cute comic that neatly summarizes what I mean: http://xkcd.com/c106.html [xkcd.com]

Typical work network rules (2, Interesting)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105789)

I understand that being deployed military is quite a bit different from working in an office, but there are many, many sites I can't get to from my desk at work that I can get to at home. If I try to go to somewhere the network gods say I shouldn't, I get a big Websense error message instead.

Gaming sites? Filtered. Hacking sites? Filtered. Gambling and porn as well (I assume, haven't tried those.) Recently, they've figured out how to filter the google cache of pages sometimes, too.

Unfortunately, sometimes the hacker sites have been the sites with the info I need for work, but the guy two cubes down has a VPN to his home up most of the time, or I just wait until I go home and look stuff up there.

Re:Typical work network rules (1)

ryanov (193048) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106151)

There are a lot of differences here... working for the military is NOT like working in an office. Also, your office is not controlling your internet access while you're "off duty" at the office. I mean, I know the military is also not like being back in a civilian area and that internet access might be limited, but... c'mon, haven't these guys suffered enough without having their YouTube access fucked with?

Re:Typical work network rules (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106169)

At least some of the people who are using the DoD network are unable to go home to check the blocked sites. Iraq and Afghanistan are half a world away from America. And at least some soldiers actually live on military bases: even their home computer would use the DoD network.
If people in Iraq or Afghanistan open internet cafes that don't censor YouTube, and are able to keep them open, then we'll be closer to earning that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner.

blatant censorship (4, Interesting)

evwah (954864) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105795)

the whole bit about footage too graphic for you tube... well by its very nature that is what puts the military in a bad light. sounds like propaganda to me.

on another note... I'm in the air force, and for quite some time the base network has blocked access to the following (though some of the blocks have since been rescinded):
1.e-bay
2.something awful
3.any flash content
4.any URL with the word "game" in it
5.any URL with the word "forum" in it
6.countless other harmless sites that don't come to mind right now

Re:blatant censorship (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105953)

Yes, this is propaganda, and everyone can recognize it, but that doesn't necessary mean that it is false. A definition of propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." (as provided by Dictionary.com). We need to take a critical look at the content and determine if it is true or false; not just dismiss the entire channel.

As to network access, I'm surprised that Internet access is so prevalent in military offices. There is actually very little need for Internet access; NIPR, SIPR, & others are the networks that are required. Yes, there are many sites that are harmless, but they are also distractions from the mission, just as personal telephone calls are.

Thank you for serving; your work is appreciated.

Re:blatant censorship (1)

evwah (954864) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106025)

I am not in a deployed location. I calibrate and fix electronics. I VERY routinely require access to manufacturer's websites to do research on equipment I'm working on... just for one example...

I'll bet you that more people in the military require internet access than you realize.

Re:blatant censorship (0, Troll)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105983)

Look, MSGT McPervy, just because you can't look at TnA while working at your avionics bench, doesn't mean you are prevented from the rest of the internet.

As a civilian, I did that job for USN, using SuperScout, I WAS Mister Access Denied, and, backed by regulations, was very strict in sites I blocked. We even had several prosecutions. Do it on your own time.

As a former MTI at Lackland, in the pre-web era, I was used to whining airmen. But, please, you do know the military has a mission other than making sure you can look for Borat videos on YouTube, right?

Re:blatant censorship (1)

evwah (954864) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106071)

well after sifting through your blatantly offensive rant, I ask you one question...

since when is the slashdot poll about TnA? yes, that is usually blocked. how horribly detrimental it must be to national policy or to the mission to know that most people's favorite sci fi vessel is the USS-CowboyNeal.

p.s. I surf during lunchtime, which I am very much allowed to do

dont watch it then (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105811)

just because the military puts up its own youtube channel doesnt mean you HAVE TO watch it. the right to speak/broadcast doesnt mean anyone will listen. keep that in mind

Re:dont watch it then (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106247)

just because the military puts up its own youtube channel doesnt mean you HAVE TO watch it

Yes. That hardly needs to be pointed out. So, what's your point?

USSTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19105815)

hehehe, United states soldiers

I'm not watching it ... (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105827)

... until it has sleeping cats falling off TV's, narcoleptic dogs and drunk people doing the Macarena.

Re:I'm not watching it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106019)

hmm, so that is what is happening in iraq now? yeesh, i am way behind in the news these days...

Is that classified? (5, Interesting)

John Vai (150587) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105839)

Here is a nice video from the good american army educating the Iraqi population?
Is that the kind of classified information we should not allow the marines to post?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c4_1176720508&p=1 [liveleak.com]

John Vai

Re:Is that classified? (2, Interesting)

sponga (739683) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106401)

That was in Afghanistan and not Iraq before you get too many 'interesting' mod points for false info even though it says 'Life as a Grunt in Afghanistan'; besides it doesn't rain there like in the video and they have nowhere near the good weed/hash that Afghanistan has. I was over in Afghanistan and brought back an ounce of Afghan Hash after getting injured; one of the little Afghan kids tried to extort charges from me for more money and said if I didn't pay more he would go tell my Sarge.

The situation is different in Afghanistan and people are not as hostile as I hear it is in Iraq; although the situation has gotten a little more aggressive over there in the last few months especially in the Northeastern section.

While were on videos here is a nice one in Iraq of a cute little Kurdish Iraq girl; well she was cute until the Muslims got to her.
http://www.filecabi.net/video/horrific-stone.html [filecabi.net]
We would see this all the time though when the husband would literally beat the wife into a bloody mess or a punching blow right to her head stunning her not to talk to us; yeah that shit is intense over there and the least of my worries is a couple of soldiers telling some foreigners to say thing they don't understand.
More actual Iraq videos and not ones from Afghanistan; not propaganda but actual soldier shot footage
http://www.filecabi.net/video/executegen.html [filecabi.net]
http://www.filecabi.net/video/getting_rocked-fixed .html [filecabi.net]
http://www.filecabi.net/video/Hunt_For_Insurgents. html [filecabi.net]

Editorial decisions (5, Insightful)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105881)

The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ...

Oh really? So what is the criteria then? number of shots on target? cost to the taxpayer of munitions expended? rounds discharged per second?

Entertainment value?

I mean, c'mon, that's just such a silly statement. What other reason can the military ever have for releasing any media at all beyond terse official communiques?

Re:Editorial decisions (4, Insightful)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105981)

What other reason can the military ever have for releasing any media at all beyond terse official communiques?
I would think the purpose is obvious.

To recruit.

I've seen TV ads where an FPS turns into the US Army video - albeit a little "Saving Private Ryan" hue to it all - and then a "sarge" shouting about the real challenge.

The people who watch videos on youtube are the target recruiting age demographic.

Are there blooper reels? (2, Funny)

arcite (661011) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105997)

You know things like:

- accidently shooting your friend in the back

- blowing up children by mistake

- shooting at reporters as they wave the white flag of war... ect

Re:Editorial decisions (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106215)

How is this a troll, speaking of editorial decisions? He's not trying to insult anyone, or get them to flame. The socratic method is not a crime.

I'm gonna post these i think (4, Informative)

im just cannonfodder (1089055) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105965)

well better post some true history on what the usa and uk are up to then so i'd better link these vids on mp3's to the site!

Rory Bremner gives a hilarious and historical look at the history of conflict in Iraq.

1 Between Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8 [youtube.com]
2 Beyond Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JCLwhwTmM [youtube.com]
3 Beneath Iraq And A Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipa8DuKyN6I [youtube.com]

Robert Newmans History of Oil:

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Ecd6361Ls [youtube.com]
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZefONsT1E8 [youtube.com]
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ0RX3vz-Og [youtube.com]
4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxxybJWVRI [youtube.com]
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsknJvrfSYA [youtube.com]


WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ FOR OIL !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWiLshk6fSU [youtube.com]


an interesting lecture by Michael Ruppert: part on starts after brief music:The Truth and Lies of 9-11 A lecture by former LAPD narcotics officer, Michael Ruppert, held at Portland State University in November 2001. He explains how September 11th is connected with oil, gas, heroin, money laundering and the US stockmarket

1: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour1mix. mp3 [dvlabs.com]

2: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour2mix. mp3 [dvlabs.com]

This does nothing. (2, Insightful)

FunWithKnives (775464) | more than 6 years ago | (#19105967)

This is completely pointless. I already support the troops. By and large, they are just doing what they have been told to do. I also have no doubt that Abu Ghraib and others all began at the top of the chain of command and worked their way downward, providing plausible deniability to the people who were actually responsible for it all.

The only way that this is about the troops at all is in the sense that they are even there in the first place. This is about the U.S. invading a sovereign nation on false pretences. It is about our soldiers dying not for our safety, to keep the country free, or to liberate an oppressed people, but simply for oil interests. It is about the Iraqi families which have been torn apart, killed, and subjected to death and destruction every day, caused by both extremist groups and U.S. forces. It is about placing the security of the country in the hands of NATO, aggressive multinational diplomacy, and rebuilding the infrastructure of a decimated country.

Showing us that the U.S. troops are performing their given tasks is going to accomplish absolutely nothing at all.

NIPRNET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106001)

National Internet Porn Repository Network?

War Crimes Clips (2, Interesting)

MrSteveSD (801820) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106047)

I don't suppose they will be posting these:

The famous "Awe Dude" air-strike on a crowd of civilians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQUK5rA4DaI [youtube.com]

Or this apparent murder of civilians driving by in their cars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnyjH5wusqs [youtube.com]

Or the Apache killing these unarmed men in a farmers field, working on a tractor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmZRyNd6ru8 [youtube.com]

Or executing a wounded Iraqi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W41srr6CQU [youtube.com]

Blowing up Mosque's doesn't look so good either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFVnqUJWsiU [youtube.com]

Re:War Crimes Clips (5, Informative)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106463)

Here, let me help you out a little. I happen to know the guys from the apache farmer video. Think about it for a second, it's night....late at night. How many people do you know work on farm equipment in the dark late at night? Also when we went out there after all of this you know what we found? Oh, wow missiles and rockets, the only reason that they didn't shoot at the Apache is that they didn't know where it was. When you can't tell the enemy from the guys that aren't the enemy bad shit happens. No, it's not right but it happens, just because you didn't hear about it in other wars doesn't mean that it doesn't happen either. Oh, and blowing up a Mosque we only do when there is good reason (think bombs) to do so. You're going to believe what you're going to believe no matter what someone tells you, but everything you see on Youtube and the TV isn't necessarily what the person showing it to you tells you it is. Also before you go waving around the Geneva convention about shit you may want to read it, I remember reading somewhere that if the enemy doesn't follow it you don't have to either and I do remember some videos of people having their head sawed off among other things. I feel for the Iraqis, as did most of my compatriots in Iraq but it's not our fault if shit happens... we cannot I repeat cannot tell the difference between the enemy from the innocents so some innocents do get caught in the crossfire. How about you blame the suits who put us there in the first place? I sure as hell didn't want to go and most people in the military are not the bloodthirsty sick fucks you seem to think we are. That's why I got out of the military, I saw way too much and couldn't stand the thought of my little girl never knowing who her daddy was. Nor could I stand to see another little girl dead in the street because some asshole decided to start shooting and grabber her to use as a shield. That made me equal parts angry and sick, I actually vomited when it was over and sometimes I have nightmare because of it. Oh, but you don't see those videos do you?! You also don't see the videos of the guys walking into a crowd of schoolchildren and then setting off a bomb hoping to get one or two soldiers do you? No, because you want to fervently to believe that the soldiers in the service are bloodthirsty animals to soothe your conscience for some strange reason. So you sir can fuck off and maybe try to get your facts straight.

Who wants to bet that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106049)

this'll be countered by hunderds of YouTube users speaking out against the War in Iraq?

Personally, you all should remember this before you respond.

Don't blame the military, blame the military's Commander-in-Chief! The military is just doing what they signed up for... well except the National Guard who SHOULD BE helping the nation bounce back from stuff like Hurricane Katrina, but again blaim the Commander-in-Chief. He got us into this war and is now refusing to allow the war to be funded on the other parties' terms.

The Dislexic Military Channel (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106051)

Because the army had to lower their standards in order to fill recruitment quotas, they also had to launch The Dislexic Soldier Channel. Their motto is "Can All You Be Can". (ripped off from Bill Mauer)

Check w/superior officer first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19106083)

And while all the clips currently posted have been shot by the military's combat cameramen, soldiers and marines have been invited to submit their own clips.' The question is, where are they supposed to submit them?

Yeah, after checking with their superior officers first...

I have a question (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106163)

So why the censorship? The DoD cites security reasons, but the Commander of Global Network Operations (DoD's Joint Task Force)"has noted a significant increase in the use of DoD network resources tied up by individuals visiting certain recreational Internet sites." The PDF released by the DoD reminds troops that this "benefits not only you, your fellow Servicemembers, and Civilian employees, but preserves our vital networks for conducting official DoD business in peace and war." Sounds like quite a sticky situation."
Why the hell doesn't the world's largest military have the bandwidth to support our troops watching YouTube? We have missiles that cost millions each but we can't afford some Internet bandwidth? WTF?

The war at home. (4, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106173)

No one is even pretending that American mass media is for the dissemination of unbiased facts anymore. Read the article, read the slashdot summary... all of it contains biased wording.

I accept that this may be modded offtopic. It just pisses me off that everyone is pushing their agendas via a medium that has such potential to empower.

The media climate has reached a point where even if I were to put together a youtube series depicting the life of veterans after returning to the states, chronicling both their triumphs and their tragedies, the series would be politicized by all the f*cking pundits and bloggers and politicians to where very few people could view it without preconcieved notions about my own personal opinions about war, politics, and the state of our democracy.

Anyone else out there feel like you can't even trust what you see with your own eyes anymore? Do any other Americans out there feel like it is damn near impossible to speak directly to your fellow countrymen without having your words filtered through the opinions of the talking heads that fill their t.v. screens and babble out of their radios?

Regards.

Re:The war at home. (2, Interesting)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106303)

It just pisses me off that everyone is pushing their agendas via a medium that has such potential to empower.

You're pissed off that people are using a medium with potential to empower, to empower themselves? Hmmmm. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Re:The war at home. (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106425)

Um... your comment does not make a whole lot of sense. The point of a democracy is to allow the populace access to information from which they make decisions that will guide their governmental institutions.

There is no democracy without access to unbiased information. The practice of manipulating information is anti-democracy and anti-America. My point is that information manipulation is now the status-quo.

Americans are not supposed to agree or disagree with governmental agendas, but to set the agendas.

Regards.

Impossible (1)

geek (5680) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106371)

Take some literary theory classes and you will quickly begin to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to seperate writers from bias. In the few rare occasions that you can (stereo instructions for example) the READER will still add their own bias to their interpretation of it.

The media is doing exactly what it always has done. Provided facts laced with opinions. This has been going on since the dawn of time. Our jobs as readers are to parse that information as best we can. Reading it is a active, not passive, experience. You can't expect to be spoon fed the truth. The truth itself is subjective and often subject to interpretation.

Re:Impossible (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106481)

You make an excellent point, but there is a difference that has developed over the past hundred years or so.

Information is no longer garnered from sources that you can evaluate through direct personal experience with the source. There is no prior period in history where individuals recieved their immediate information via sources that they could not use direct personal experience to evaluate, or to hold accountable for erroneous actions motivated by the receipt of erroneous information.

If I choose to believe information delivered through my television it is a leap of faith. There is no one to rebuke for the receipt of bad info upon which I base my actions. Figureheads may change, but the channels through which information is distributed remain.

Regards.

Department of Government Duplication Department (2, Interesting)

davmoo (63521) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106287)

Is there really some reason they needed this when they already have DVIDS [dvidshub.net]?

isn't it obvious (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106397)

if they can only access the internets to actually upload stuff *at home* then anything they upload will be 6 to 15 months out of date. Firstly, this means that it's unlikely that anything that would compromise current operations would get out and secondly, it means that as Iraq descends further into chaos, the youtube clips will be showing an Iraq 6 to 15 months earlier when it wasn't quite so bad.

Where is the channel? Was it removed? (2, Informative)

CaroKann (795685) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106435)

According to the article, the channel is named "Multi-National Force-Iraq", but a search on YouTube does not turn up anything.
The article states it is the 16th most subscribed channel on YouTube, but I don't see it anywhere in the top subscribed channel list.

Did the military or YouTube remove it?

Good things are happening.... (0, Troll)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 6 years ago | (#19106459)

I am sure good things are happening, but NO amount of good things can make up for the damage we (The US) have done. I personally hold Bush and his clan responsible for ~3500 American deaths and more importantly over 1/2 million Iraqi deaths. Not to mention all the injuries, destroyed lives and a destroyed country. The SOB Bush has killed more Americans than Osama bin laden and more Iraqi's than Saddam had in a long time. We talk about catching Osama (or not..) We should be catching Bush. Everyday that goes by I find myself more furious over what he has done to my country (and what we have let him do). This is like some horrible nightmare. I am going to stop here so I don't get into a rant and type 3 pages. On an individual level our troops are good people, doing their job, but as a whole they have been sent to do a horrible thing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...