You're drawing inferences where they do not exist. Please allow me to correct them.
I never said this was another Vietnam nor did I imply it by any stretch. However, that argument has been made by many on the Left, so you may get an argument there if you were to bring it up independently of this post, I'm not sure with this crowd and now that I've said it. Nonetheless, it's not a question of whether Iraq is another Vietnam, that's not the point. The question to ask is whether or not the news media is reacting to Iraq much the same way they did to Vietnam. I believe they are.
Please please please tell me why you think this could be considered a civil war? I really want to know how you come to that conclusion, even the possibility? No one in Iraq is saying it is a civil war, except perhaps those planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on the roadside. Those terrorists are quite small in number regardless of how effective or ineffective they are with such attacks. It doesn't take a very large force to create the casualties they've created in over the past year, and that number is very small compared to other conflicts. Again, please please please tell me why you think this could be a civil war? I really want to know, honestly.
"You are assuming that is because they are deliberately trying to mislead the American public about our position there"
- That's not exactly my assumption, let me explain. Your choice of the word DELIBERATE implies that I think it's more a conscious effort, more overt. I don't view it that way. I also don't agree with a conspiracy angle. What I do believe is that the profession of journalism attracts far more Leftists than Right Wingers, far more Liberals than Conservatives, far more activists than non-activists. I think it's just inherent with that profession for whatever benign reason(s). This is why I've stated previously that it's more of a cultural issue when it comes to media bias affecting their reporting. Also, when you ask a student of journalism what their motives are for picking that profession, they don't typically say "I want to get the truth out" or "I simply want to report the facts" (that would be boring right?). What they more typically say is "I want change the world" or something to that affect. That is activism by definition. Also, conservatives and Right Wingers are less inclined to be activists. How many Million Man Conservative Marches have you heard of in the Capital? Not many, more like not ANY.
So, that's why I think they are biased. I don't hold them to some super high standard, but they do by proclaiming almost flawless objectivity in their reporting, even if they DO confess to bias in their private lives. But if you stop and think about it Journalism/reporting functions with about the least amount of checks and balances of any discipline you can imagine. They pretty much have carte-blanche. The 9/11 Commission fiasco was a prime example of this. And even when they are checked, it's often too late, as the first word to get on the street via front page headlines, is often far more believed than it's rebuke/retraction on the back page, if that rebuke/retraction happens at all.
I'm not interpretting the news media as some evildoing entity. On the contrary I know their intentions are good, however incredibly misguided I think they are. I don't know why or how you jumped to that conclusion. But it's not what I've said or implied at any time. If you think I did then let me make it clear here and now. Yes, I know you can't scrub news coverage to remove all bias. That's not what I propose. But I would like people to be far more critical of reports that are propelled as, and often received as purely objective reporting. The images that are pumped to us on a daily basis have a much more dramatic affect than I wish they did. But when it goes on and on, like it's on autopilot or something, it gets very scary to me. Look at how Moore's film is automatically being received by many as a "documentary". Even Moore himself made his intentions clear before he made the film, more like "Agendamentary" I think, to be fair to his own expressions.
Now, let me clarify something to be fair. It's not just the news media that is using the word "insurgents" to describe the enemy. The Iraqi government leadership is, as well as some of our military. I think this is a mistake that they haven't recognized yet, and in the case of the Iraqis it's a language issue. But if let's say they had called them "criminals", do you think the reporters would have questioned them about it? Do you think that the reporters would insist that the word "criminal" be justified with some sort of proof or evidence? Hell yes! But not with the word "insurgent". That goes without question. Ask yourself why?
I don't know, maybe I'm just some warped freak over here and I'm slated for the fate of an isolationist/neo nazi lifestyle. Maybe I'll have to do what others here have suggested and run off to Fiji to hide. I'd hate to think it, but everything I've said here seems like pretty reasonable stuff. It bothers me deeply and I feel passionately about it.