dft - don't feel bad about having not been able to find it. almost nobody (who didn't already know who it was) knows who that is, speaking - Barry McNamara.

i'll give you a parting upvote for the attempt, though, for sure. i only looked for it, last month, because i was going through my way old YouTube favorites, for potential sifts, and knew someone had to have shnagged it already (dotdude):

http://www.videosift.com/video/What-Barry-Says-Animation-to-the-Polemic

I just wanted to raise this point with you Jonny, the war is covered in drastically different ways between American and European media. This was especially prevalent during the start of the war, 'Shock And Awe' on CNN was basically the Al Jazeera feed, they allowed the American people to see US warplanes decimate Baghdad but didn't follow it up with Al Jazeera's coverage of numerous civilians killed as part of 'collateral' damage.

The media as a whole rallied around the Bush administration, even publications such as the Washington Post, New York Times and many others justified the invasion of Iraq initially. Even with world protests, dissent from major European powers like France and Germany.

Embedded reporters were with the US forces offered a slanted view of the war, because the other side was never given a voice, and am not talking about insurgents or anything like that but the civilian population who ultimately bares the brunt of the casualities in the war. Criticism of any sort was avoided at all costs because somehow that would mean undermining the mission or the troops, not even thinking about how such a preception would be taken by the rest of the world.

Was it swelled patriotism, revenge reportage or an inablilty to critique a war seemingly everyone supported - I don't know but it was very clear for me to see just by switching between Fox, CNN, EuroNews, BBC and Al Jazeera.

The US Military believed that it lost the war in Vietnam not in Vietnam but in the way the war was presented to the American people back home. The same situation is being replayed now in Iraq, only this time the media was fully with the US military. Only now the news does not show combat, does not show US troop losses but mentions them in passing, does not show civilian costs of the war and most of all doesn't ever mention the vets coming back from the war injured and or disabled.

Ultimately my arguement is that I believe VS as I stated can be a venue for informed views with regards to current affairs in the world. The most important right now being the war on terror, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and many others that take place around the world.

We in less then 2 years have seen the rise of YouTube and citizen journalism as a whole, videos of the political repression in Burma flooded the internet almost as soon as the event occured, would that have happened before? Videosift is one of the few sites that actually has a politics section, a topic that is usually avoided like plague by other video hosts. I believe the userbase in the site as a whole is more then capable of policing itself, especially with long term users.

Likewise I do not believe we should avoid addressing important issues like the war. Everytime I think about this issue I recall this:

"I think the human race needs to think about killing. How much evil must we do in order to do good. "
- Robert McNamara

With regards to rubberneckers and drivebys, there is already a website far more catered to their interests called LiveLeak, I believe that VS as a community would provide the need framing and context not to create sensationalism for the posts that could arise, drive bys here don't last long at all. The reason people keep coming back is because the core userbase is exactly the opposite of the YouTube fanbase.

I do agree though that we shouldn't rush to finalize the issue.

Morris the same guy who did "Fog of War" w/ Robert McNamara? Great film.

EDIT: yup, it is.

Barry McNamara, the creator of this animation, titled it:

"What Barry Says: Animation to the Polemic"

I know because I posted it and looked up the info on it. At the time we did not have a description ability.

This is a dupe. The original still works.

http://www.videosift.com/video/What-Barry-Says-Animation-to-the-Polemic


*discard

I believe even a larger then necessary troop deployment of around 150,000 to 200,000 would not really yield beneficial results, the region would become more destabilized, America will look more like an occupier radical islamic people could then easily sell their case to the population and you'll have the entire middle east against US forces.

I think McNamara's rule of understanding your enemy needs to be explored here, concussions made for strategic purpose. What would the Iran leadership really want? A costly and self destructive war against the largest super power or economic help to appease their own population so they can stay in power.

The fact is that this is not the 1960s where the USA could endorse a totally unilateral stance, the globalization of the world means that more and more nations are co-dependent on economic well being. It's no longer that economic shocks effect one nation but they effect all. Because China relies on import sales to everyone, and in turn the first world become the innovators of new technology.

The last thing the USA needs to do is push OPEC further in considering a switch to the Euro via aggressive action in their area. That would lead to a depression and a total collapse of the economy.

The costs are far more now then ever before.

Oh, I'm with you on all of your questions. It seems like the Bush philosophy is that more bodies will yield more results, but McNamara already illustrated the fallacy of that.

The United States has never committed to its occupation. It seriously treated fantasies such as "We will be greeted as liberators" and "The Iraqis will embrace freedom" as coherent and finished policies.

What a large troop surge could do (50,000-75,000) is provide cover for all of the humanitarian, engineering, and infrastructure projects that need to be accomplished. A surge of 15,000-20,000 is completely useless and only provides, if anything, weak political cover for the scoundrels that dreamed their way through this war.

The U.S. needs to figure out the best way to re-deploy as to place diplomatic, economic and political pressure on Iran and Syria. And then actually use diplomacy for the first time in nearly 8 years.

"I think the human race needs to think more about killing, how much evil must we do in order to do good?"

- Robert S. McNamara

While I find it commendable that Robert McNamara did do this film. I can't accept his explanations for the use of Agent Orange as being simply "I don't remember".

I felt that the documentarian gave his subject too much leeway because of a wider message he wanted to put out post the war in Iraq.

Still a monumental film that needs to be watched. What I would to see now is the same treatment of Henry Kissinger.

This is a clip from "The Fog of war" with Robert S. McNamara. Is a very informative documentry.

Interesting idear drpepper. McNamara was accused of many things in his time, but the biggest difference between him and Rummie is that I don't think anyone ever accused him of either being dishonest or stupid, which are two of this current Secretary's biggest faults.

Not that it has much to do with this, but this got me feeling how one day i'd really like to see Rumsfeld's version of 'the fog of war'. Because McNamara really let it all out and spoke some harsh truths.

If you havn't seen it, do yourself a favor and check it out

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/