Grimis
Scrapple
  
   
      
 
 
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 752 days
Last activity: 549 days
|  #1 Posted on 15.9.03 1510.12 | Instant Rating: 7.29 | Not breaking news or anything, but my god some of the reporters in Baghdad were a Slimy lot:
From the point of view of my being in Baghdad, I had more authority than anybody else. Without contest, I was the most closely watched and unfavored of all the correspondents there because of what I wrote about terror whilst Saddam Hussein was still in power.
Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by itself, with the possible exception in the present world of North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to be told about this place. It was also the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was okay.
There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the approbation of the people who governed their lives. This was the ministry of information, and particularly the director of the ministry. By taking him out for long candlelit dinners, plying him with sweet cakes, plying him with mobile phones at $600 each for members of his family, and giving bribes of thousands of dollars. Senior members of the information ministry took hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. They never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror.
In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and other people's stories -- mine included -- specifically in order to be able to show the difference between himself and the others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.
Yeah, it was an absolutely disgraceful performance. CNN's Eason Jordan's op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq? It doesn't preclude you from telling about terror. Of murder on a mass scale just because you won't talk about how your driver's brother was murdered.
Go ahead and read on...
| | Promote this thread! |           | Leroy
Andouille
Since: 7.2.02
From: Queens, NY
Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 17 hours
| #2 Posted on 15.9.03 1536.22 | The anti-war movement really did a poor job handling Hussein and his atrocities. Nobody thought he was a nice guy, but nobody really wanted to focus on alternatives other than military action.
But that still doesn't mean we did the right thing by going in there.
Of course, there are also Brit Hume's remarks after the invasion of Afghanistan regarding civilian casualities, which is just as atrocious:
Where no news is good news
Fox: Civilian Casualties Not News
"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
"Finally, a candidate who can explain the current administration's position on civil liberties in the original German."
- Bill Maher on Arnold Schwarzenneger
"You know, I'm a follower of American politics."
- President George W. Bush, 8 Aug 2003 | spf
Scrapple
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 6 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #3 Posted on 15.9.03 1608.41 | And the alternative view of journalism and Iraq Amanpour says CNN self-censored themselves on Iraq out of fear of Bush Admin and Fox News (usatoday.com)
Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler
blogforamerica.com | Michrome
Head cheese
Since: 2.1.03
Since last post: 3315 days
Last activity: 2381 days
| #4 Posted on 15.9.03 1635.54 | Instant Rating: 0.00 | | Amanpour is the epitome of what conservatives hate about CNN. She is always anti-U.S. and Israel, especially Israel. All of her reporting about the "massacre" during Jenin ended up being a complete lie, the least she could do is apologize. The whole war she was making it sound like the United States was losing, which was one of the reasons I didn't watch CNN war coverage. The "footsoldiers at fox news" remark is really a joke. Yes, they are a conservative station, but that doesn't mean you don't see conservatives knocking Bush on there sometimes. As it turns out, we won the war in 17 days, and thus the stations that had the "war is going well" slant were reporting correctly. | spf
Scrapple
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 6 days
| AIM: | |
| | |
| #5 Posted on 15.9.03 1639.33 | If this is what winning a war looks like, I think I understand the notion of the "phyrric victory" now.
Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler
blogforamerica.com | Michrome
Head cheese
Since: 2.1.03
Since last post: 3315 days
Last activity: 2381 days
| #6 Posted on 15.9.03 1902.05 | Instant Rating: 0.00 | | Yes, the war was won. The peace is not going great, but things are quite stable in the northern part of Iraq, and are growing more stable in the South. The problem remains in the middle, but the fact that there's resistance doesn't change the fact that the war was won in 17 days. | Grimis
Scrapple
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 752 days
Last activity: 549 days
| #7 Posted on 15.9.03 1954.54 | Instant Rating: 7.29 | But remember....the media is not biased.
| Jaguar
Knackwurst
Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ
Since last post: 597 days
Last activity: 597 days
| #8 Posted on 15.9.03 2248.14 | Bah, nevermind. I'm usually better about not responding to that.
-Jag
(edited by Jaguar on 15.9.03 2350)
 | PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 2312 days
Last activity: 2155 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #9 Posted on 16.9.03 0229.07 | Instant Rating: 9.00 | Originally posted by spf2119
If this is what winning a war looks like, I think I understand the notion of the "phyrric victory" now.
Firstly, it's "pyrrhic." Secondly, I'll agree with you on one condition: that you can name a war of comparable scale with fewer casualties and complications, and in which victory was achieved in fewer than seventeen days.
Johnny Cash
1932-2003 | If I was a rich man
Cotto
Since: 28.8.03
From: Your wifes bed, via the back window.....
Since last post: 3418 days
Last activity: 3418 days
| #10 Posted on 16.9.03 0521.39 | Instant Rating: 1.40 | What? slimy journo's and the media spinning things to get over their point of view instead of just presenting the facts?
I can't believe this - why would the media do this - what do they have to gain?
Objective journalism is the fabric of every civilised society. This is all just a conspiracy theory.
PS: which way to the welfare office, my cheques late. | spf
Scrapple
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 6 days
| AIM: | |
| | |
| #11 Posted on 16.9.03 0933.49 | Instant Rating: 7.11 | Originally posted by PalpatineW
Originally posted by spf2119
If this is what winning a war looks like, I think I understand the notion of the "phyrric victory" now.
Firstly, it's "pyrrhic." Secondly, I'll agree with you on one condition: that you can name a war of comparable scale with fewer casualties and complications, and in which victory was achieved in fewer than seventeen days.
Firstly, you are correct. I'm usually more careful about spell-checking my posts, for that reason.
As for the second point, I cannot think of one. And that is where my issue lies. To declare "victory" was foolish propaganda designed to prop up the Bush administration at home, and it is backfiring on them now. I cannot accurately say if a certain conflict had less casualties, because this conflict is still ongoing. Simply because we took the capital of Iraq and drove Hussein into hiding has not meant victory. We only have won this conflict when Iraq is no longer hostile territory, and as of now, that's not the case. I'll say it's not a pyrrhic victory, but only when people stop calling it a victory period. Because victory implies "game over" and when the game is over you don't lose a couple of soldiers a week to enemy ambushes.
Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler
blogforamerica.com | ges7184
Lap cheong
Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL
Since last post: 89 days
Last activity: 11 hours
| #12 Posted on 16.9.03 1105.50 | Instant Rating: 4.26 | Well, I think in any kind of military sense, we have won the war. We have defeated and dismantled the foriegn army, we've kicked the former regime out, and we control the land. By your definition, Germany never defeated the French in WWII because they always had to deal with a small resistance movement (or what we would call terrorists) throughout the rest of the war, but I don't see many history books try to claim that France was never defeated.
This is clearly the occupational period, we are the occupying army (though the Bush adminstration doesn't like those words). I think it's very questionable that we will acheive our post-war objectives, but this is post-war (wars are the part wear you kill people and break things, we are past that phase). Quite frankly, I think the opposition of this operation would be better served to play up the costs and time. Comparing this to Vietnam is a losing issue, because while I can see some similarity on the side of wasting our time, the casualty count will never compare, and people can see that. Also, remember it took years for Vietnam to become Vietnam. It took LOTS of casualties for Americans to finally grow tired, and basically it took a bloody battle to turn the tide of public opinion, one that any remaining Iraqi opposition would simply not be able to produce (thankfully).
I think its better to argue against this on its own merits, not based on trying to make it something its not. The question is this, is the practice of nation building worthwhile, especially when faces with sabotage efforts? Will this gain us any significant level of national security? Is it a realistic goal to set up a democracy in this nation? Will it ever work without our backing? Are we stuck there permanently, like South Korea?
In my mind, it's worth neither the time, effort, or even the few casualties we are suffering to try to rebuild Iraq into what we view as the ideal country. I can't ever see a democratic government in Iraq that can stand on its own without U.S. backing and protection. I also don't see Iraq as a threat to our nation now (but I didn't see them as a threat in the first place), and that's really the only good reason to stick our nose in Iraq's business anyway.
Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr. | Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada
Since last post: 2349 days
Last activity: 2349 days
|  #13 Posted on 16.9.03 1608.17 | Instant Rating: 0.00 | ges7184 sez:
Well, I think in any kind of military sense, we have won the war.
But this is quite simply not true. Maybe as wars were fought in the 19th century, but not nowadays. In any kind of military sense, America beat Vietnam handily from 1964 to 1973. In any kind of military sense, Russia has been kicking Chechnyan ass since 1995. But this "military sense" is meaningless in examining the wars as fought today.
The methods of fighting have changed since the end of World War Two. Because of the discrepancy in power between First World and Third World countries, wars are no longer about the territory gained and held by an army. It's now all about outlasting your opponent in guerrilla wars of attrition. It's not about the number of foes killed, it's who has the support from the home front to keep fighting the longest. Vietnam suffered a million deaths to America's 50,000 yet who won the war?
We have defeated and dismantled the foriegn army, we've kicked the former regime out, and we control the land.
Iraq could not stand toe-to-toe with America's military, and for the most part their army didn't even try (except for that one week where the Americans overextended themselves in the drive to Baghdad). Their air force didn't even leave the ground once. Most Iraqi soldiers surrendered without firing a shot, or abandoned their posts and went home, but many of them just melded in with the civilian population to carry on the fight. Wars between the developed nations and the Third World haven't been about territory controlled since Korea (and the Falkland Islands). It's all about support on the home front and attrition.
Does the American and British public have the stomach to fight this kind of war for any amount of time, given the lack of clear objectives "winning the war" entails?
They got a mule they call Sal, bulldozing up canal walls.
They're gonna tap that icecap too,
And when they do they're gonna make that green map blue.
And the weather is finally getting warm ... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
