Good news in Iraq

[billvon 2,436]

After a long stretch of very bad news from Iraq, we're finally starting to see some good news.

The truce in Fallujah has been holding for the most part, and coalition troops and insurgents are starting to negotiate. Learning how to switch from fighting rebels to negotiating with them is going to become critical as we hand over sovereignty in a few months.

Bush has finally started to accept help from the UN, and it looks like he will now be open to handing power over to a UN-appointed interim government. Perhaps that government will have trouble as well, but it's likely that it will be more accepted than the US-appointed Interim Governing Council. We're going to need all the help we can get as we try to support what is essentially an unelected occupation government until they can set up elections and get an elected government in place.

[w4p2 0]

We discussed the iraqi operation here almost a year ago. I was pissed of for US actions, you were not happy either, and both of us ( and number of others )were afraid that US will leave a big mess behind.

I hoped, we would be wrong, but unfortunately not.

Thousands of lives wasted, Iraq in worse shape than ever, US won the battle but lost the war and face.

My prediction is, that within a few years we will have three separate states, namingly kurdi, sunni and shia, each creating individually more problems than unified Iraq ever did.

Thank you Mr. Bush... you will be never re-elected but cleaning your mess will take forever.

[tcnelson 1]

it has been mostly good news all along...it's just that you don't seem to know how to weed the hypothetical news out from the reality news. the fact that most people/countries are woefully uneducated in the matters of world affairs and history and like to spout bs from their point of view is inconsequential. what has been done needed to be done and still needs doing. unreasonable people cannot be reasoned with; they just need to be removed.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[tcnelson 1]

see above post

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[billvon 2,436]

>it has been mostly good news all along...

If you like war, I suppose you could see even hundreds of dead US troops as good news.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

and both of us ( and number of others )were afraid that US will leave a big mess behind.

I hoped, we would be wrong, but unfortunately not.

Is it not fairly obvious at this point that the US is not going to cut and run, and that the US is not going to "leave a big mess behind?"

Quote

Iraq in worse shape than ever

Are you fucking kidding me?

Quote

My prediction is, that within a few years we will have three separate states, namingly kurdi, sunni and shia, each creating individually more problems than unified Iraq ever did.

This problem is just as old as the Jew/Palestinian/Muslim problem. If someone cuts the map, it will be just as arbitrary as the lines from the 1940s.

And how could there be more problems than there were in Iraq? They were constantly at war with their neighbors and with each other, and a maniacal dictator was slaughtering people.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

This problem is just as old as the Jew/Palestinian/Muslim problem. If someone cuts the map, it will be just as arbitrary as the lines from the 1940s.

And how could there be more problems than there were in Iraq? They were constantly at war with their neighbors and with each other, and a maniacal dictator was slaughtering people.

Actually the problems much older than Israel Palestine. In fact arbitrary map lines drawn by British empire administrators shortly after the first world war were the cause of the problems we see now.
Any further redrawing of the map, especially one leaving a Kurdish state would really shake things up. In a bad way.

If the US and UN can pull out leaving a relatively stable unified state with a government capable of governing then it may not come to that.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[b1jercat 0]

I would agree, the British took land they didn't own and gave it to someone that didn't live there. I have a feeling that Arabs have long memories.

The current problems in Iraq are what?
You have a leader with people willing to follow him, who could probably restore oder in the region where he lives. Too bad he's a reglious fanatic, and wouldn't work for the rest of the country.

The problem is getting all the people in Iraq on the same page without the threatening to kill them. Their fresh out of dictators, maybe the UN can help.

blues

jerry

[nbblood 0]

Quote

>it has been mostly good news all along...

If you like war, I suppose you could see even hundreds of dead US troops as good news.

Again, dwelling on only the negative aspects. Yes, troops dying is bad news. Nobody wants to see soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines perish. Some would even have us leave now and have it be all for nothing, although I don't think this is your position.

However, you dwell on only the bad "news" that shows up in the quite liberal media. Keep in mind, that "all's well at such and such place" is not newsworthy, and hence does not make news.

Even contractors providing over a hundred thousand people in Baghdad with running, potable water, that was not available to these residences prior to now, merely makes a passing comment on the news. Or the fact that we cleaned hundreds of mines from the ports. Or that we've delivered millions of pounds of relief supplies.

Yes, there are Fallujahs, but they are the exception and not the rule. But that is what is newsworthy.

The news is overwhelmingly good as far as Iraq is concerned. The vast majority of the Iraqi people support what's going on. We're making structural improvements daily. We're setting the conditions for success once Iraq stands on its own. It takes a while.

If you believe that you're getting the whole picture from the news, you're fooling yourself. You're getting what will raise their ratings for the most part. Oh, and don't think that news agencies don't have an interest in influencing the election. They do.

Keep that in mind when making assessments, or better yet, take a trip over there and see for yourself.

Edited to say: I should at least give credit for you pointing out some recent "good news" in your original post.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[quade 3]

Which begs the question, "Where ya gettin' your news?"

http://www.fair.org/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

Thank you Mr. Bush... you will be never re-elected but cleaning your mess will take forever.

Glad to know you have forehand knowledge of the upcoming elections and that you know for a fact that Bush will loose and that you are thus able to speak for the entire American voting population.


I'm curious what will the next six numbers be in the Florida, Ohio and NY lotteries? Also, what will my AT&T share prices be in 4 months I'm looking to sell? Oh and can you please tell me what exactly the questions on my Thermodynamics midterm will be wednesday so I can be prepared. Since you seem to be able to tell the future I would like to benefit from your gift.


And for those who think that Iraq is in worse shape, could you please tell me what parts of I raq you visited, what information you DID NOT get from news sources. How many Iraqi's you personally spoke to and exactly who were they and what was their life like before and how is it now? Since you are so sure that they are in worse shape I would like to know how much of your thoughts are from personal experience and original and not just spouted from what quotes and by lines you can remember.

[quade 3]

So, is that the standard now -- that you can't believe anything you hear on the news?

Is the news any less credible than The White House or, as you suggest, can we not have any opinion unless we actually do our own interviewing of the people involved? No. That's simply impractical.

News provides that service for you in exchange for your potential attention during commercial breaks.

There is an economy of scale which means that national and international news networks can provide this service better than you alone could ever hope to do.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Still waiting on an answer, quade. What, precisely, is worse in Iraq now than it was under Saddam?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Wasn't exactly my statement, but . . . I believe there are about 6000 dead Iraqis and a lot more family members that would disagree with the blanket statement that Iraq is better now than it was before March 2003. Technically, dead people don't complain too much, so that's why I'm allowing their families to speak for them. It appears to me as if anti-U.S. sentiment is much higher than before March 2003 and there appears to be a much higher concentration of terrorists in Iraq than before March 2003. Iraq has become a magnet for people with anti-U.S. tendancies.

While this may be good for the U.S. "homeland" at the moment, I'm not sure that this is good for Iraq or the U.S. in the long run.

It's certainly not good news for our troops over there. Today our body count topped 700 with 504 of those in hostile action. CNN

There have been gains made in Iraq to be sure, but it's far too soon to tell if things like women's rights will stay in place once we leave.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,436]

>Keep in mind, that "all's well at such and such place" is not
>newsworthy, and hence does not make news.

Oh, it's been making news all over the place.
---------------------------------
WASHINGTON - In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. forces would be welcomed by the Iraqi citizenry and that Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
---------------------------------
Poll finds support for war
A year after the beginning of the war, most Americans think things are going well in Iraq and believe the situation there was worth going to war over, according to the results of a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
-------------------------------
CNN SOTU coverage-

"Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future. And tonight we are honored to welcome one of Iraq's most respected leaders: the current president of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi. Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation.

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better."
----------------------------------
'Incredible Progress' Made Restoring Iraq's Infrastructure, Officials Say
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 7, 2003 – Iraq's electrical system and other key infrastructure was all but ruined after years of neglect under Saddam Hussein's rule, but reconstruction efforts are improving life for the country's citizens with each passing day, U.S. officials in Baghdad said July 7.
---------------------------------
And that was after 30 seconds of searching.

>Even contractors providing over a hundred thousand people in
> Baghdad with running, potable water, that was not available to these
> residences prior to now, merely makes a passing comment on the
> news.

I think you might be paying too much attention to mainstream media. Reuters, the BBC, the Australian Times - I've seen whole articles on the state of Iraq, what infrastructure has returned, what the people feel about the war. Amnesty International and the Red Cross are also good sources for less-biased material. (At least, less right-wing or left-wing biased material; their biases lean more towards anti-killing.)

>The news is overwhelmingly good as far as Iraq is concerned. The
> vast majority of the Iraqi people support what's going on.

The vast majority support ousting Hussein; they are considerably more divided on whether the US occupation is a good thing, or whether the war was overall a "good thing."

>If you believe that you're getting the whole picture from the news,
> you're fooling yourself.

As are you.

[Skyrad 0]

I think its good news that the US has decided to turn to the UN to help move the move to goverment forwards but I'm hearing on the news over here that the talks between Sadr and the US forces outside Najaff are quote 'broken down and at a dead end' which is a very worrying development. Also Falluja may be relativly quiet but its fighters have been able to move out in force to ambush the US forces elsewhere reportedly killing five US Marines.

'According to Marine intelligence, nearly 300 Iraqi mujahedeen fighters from the Fallujah and Ramadi areas, some 150 miles to the east, launched the offensive in an outpost near Husaybah. '

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_13

But I hope you are right and things will change for the better. Unfortunatly the Sadr situation is on a knife edge and if the US troops enter Najaff to capture Sadr, I think it will turn very bad.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[tcnelson 1]

it's too bad we can't separate the realists and the "oh no, not war" people. we could then ask the suicide bombers and plane hijackers to direct their efforts to those who think we can bargain with them for our safety. afterall, they wouldn't kill anybody...it's just that we're not muslims and we don't hate jews.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[quade 3]

Let me try to understand your point.

Is it your contention that anyone that was agaisnt going to war with Iraq was not a "realist" -- whatever that means?

I fully support our troops in Iraq, but not the decision to place them there to begin with. It was a decision based on false beliefs, at best, or outright lies.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sdgregory 0]

Not saying you can't believe anything but you certainly cannot believe that the stories you are recieving are

1.) Completely unbiased.

2.) Completely tell the truth.

3.) Tell the Complete story.

Sometimes, you have to admit that what you are saying may be slanted by disinformation, no matter what side of an argument you are on.

To make a statement like "The Iraqi's are worse of now than before" is complete BS, because, unless you were there and have reliable information from other than just the news (liberal or conservative) you cannot make that kind of definitive statement with any sort of truth.

That is all I am saying.

Granted all most of us have is what the news says, or what we see officials say. But does anyone really believe that any view you have based on those sources is based in 100% truth? No, of course not. Or at least I hope not.

And as time goes on I see the media become more and more editorial rather than "just the facts" like they want us to believe. And it happens in both camps. That is all I was saying.

[quade 3]

Quote

Not saying you can't believe anything but you certainly cannot believe that the stories you are recieving are

1.) Completely unbiased.

2.) Completely tell the truth.

3.) Tell the Complete story.

Agreed. Of course, you're using absolutes in your statements, so that kind of makes it impossible for me to refute.

Completely unbiased -- You're right that's impossible. However, that is, in fact, the goal for most journalists. How successful they are in their attempts becomes evident after a period of time. For instance, John Stossle used to be pretty credible, but somewhere in the last few years he has began more and more to sound like a corporate & right-wing political shill in his "Gimme a Break" segments. Then again, what he's doing isn't news -- it's commentary.

Completely tell the truth -- I'm not sure that a goal of news at all. The goal of news is to state the facts as they know them as best as they can -- something to the effect of "Who did What to Whom. When, Where, How and (crossing over to analysis) Why." If you want "the truth" go take a philosophy class.

Tell the Complete story -- That's nearly always impossible. There is not the time in a newscast nor enough inches in a newspaper or magazine to tell the complete story on even the most simple of events. What is possible is, to tell a story of "Who did What to Whom. When, Where, How and (crossing over to analysis) Why." that is based on facts as they know them at the time.

Here's where the wheels fall off the wagon . . .

It's a tough job and depending on the level that the reporter is at in their career they may have to file quite a few stories under very tight deadlines. This may lead them to take a number of "short cuts" in the fact gathering and checking part of their jobs. One such short cut is to parrot whatever the spokesperson has given them. This spokesperson -may- be a corporate or government official. Talking Points isn't just the name of a segment on O'Reilly (and don't you think I laugh my ass off everytime he uses the phrase).

So, is it a perfect system? No. Can't be. Are the journalists out to lie to you? Generally speaking -- no. Can they be manipulated -- if the person doing it knows what they're doing, they can be played like a fiddle (and they'll -thank- you for doing so).

Does this mean that news shouldn't be trusted? That's for you to decide. My guess is that you believed them on the morning of September 11, 2001. Why was that moment generally any less credible than what Peter Jennings says Monday through Friday at 6:30 pm?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

Does this mean that news shouldn't be trusted? That's for you to decide. My guess is that you believed them on the morning of September 11, 2001. Why was that moment generally any less credible than what Peter Jennings says Monday through Friday at 6:30 pm?

Would you like a complete list?

I believed them because they had visual images to go with it. Plus my brother, being a cop in NYC was one the phone with me because he could not get a hold of his wife who worked in Tower 2 and was panicked and needed to talk to someone. I believed it because it was not saying that it was happening everywhere in the world.

This is also easily based on provable facts. Planes did in fact fly into the WTC. Time and pictures proved it. It did not take much to prove. I also organized a supply drive and filled a 45 ft Ryder truck with gas masks, gloves, boots, respirators, etc. and drove it with my wife to NYC where I was able to see the carnage.

This is incredibly different from "Iraqi's are worse off now than before."

I bet some Iraqi's would easily argue otherwise.

Somethings you can take at face value, others you cannot.

And if you think that the news does not deliberately get things wrong, guess again.


Last week I almost lost my wife and youngest daughter (I had not planned on sharing this, but now it supports an argument, so . . .) when a 45-50 ft tree blew over as they were driving by and landed on the new van we just bought. (owned it all on 1.5 hours). The tree also totalled another car.

My wife watched the tree fall, said everything was surreal and in slow motion, tried to avoid it but couldn't. Winds were blowing 40-45 miles per hour and the rain had softened the ground. She watched it come down as she tried to avoid the coming accident.

No chance, smashed the van 4000 in damage, and totaled the other car.

The news report? Wind blows power line down, SUV catches it and wire pulls tree down smashing another car.


NOT EVEN CLOSE> I drove to the scene. No power line was even down. My wife said there was no SUV.

She called channel 10 and talked to the reporter and he said that the information he had was what his sources revealed. Said he was not interested in her story. Never even talked to HER about what happened because they showed up after I sent my wife away with my best friend to get them out of the rain. The news showed up ten minutes later, shot film of my van asked if it was mine and never once asked what happened.


They were less interested in facts as much as they were interested in images and a story to sell advertising. (IMO)

[tcnelson 1]

that's absolutely what i mean. the facts that saddam was 1. a mad man and 2. capable of causing great harm to us or allies is reason enough to remove him. A realist is someone who can look at the world and make good decisions based on fact, not on hypothetical reasoning.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[nbblood 0]

Quote

And that was after 30 seconds of searching.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The good news is very easy to see, but it is not what you see CNN spending their time on. They prefer to show you a 20 minute report on how screwed up Fallujah is, or bring you the dramatic scenes of dead American soldiers. You won't see these stories you pointed out in the headlines, although as you pointed out, it is very easy to find if you go looking for it. You make my point very well, thank-you.

Quote

I think you might be paying too much attention to mainstream media. Reuters, the BBC, the Australian Times - I've seen whole articles on the state of Iraq, what infrastructure has returned, what the people feel about the war. Amnesty International and the Red Cross are also good sources for less-biased material. (At least, less right-wing or left-wing biased material; their biases lean more towards anti-killing.)

The vast majority support ousting Hussein; they are considerably more divided on whether the US occupation is a good thing, or whether the war was overall a "good thing."

First things first....Amnesty International an unbiased source??!!....give me a break!

Yes, I see the news on TV, internet, and newspapers, and yes I consider their point of view when I determine for myself how reliably they portray the situation. And, no, I don't think the conservative news sources are any better than the liberal ones. But, most of what I really believe comes first hand from Iraq, from people I know and trust. I hear at least weekly, reports from the source, without the media spin.

That said, I am very confident in repeating that the vast majority of the Iraqis support what's going on. I think the majority realize we are trying to set the conditions for success for them in the future and they appreciate it. Are there exceptions? Sure there are. Do soldiers standing a checkpoints still cringe as each vehicle passes? Yep, wouldn't you?

Anyway, I am extremely confident in my sources as I know them personally. It also helps having been there and seen it and know for sure, but, hell, what is that worth in the big picture?

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[billvon 2,436]

>They prefer to show you a 20 minute report on how screwed up
>Fallujah is, or bring you the dramatic scenes of dead American
> soldiers.

That's because most americans care more about US soldiers getting killed than who has running water in Fallujah. I'm sure there are some activist plumbers who would rather hear about the plumbing, and that's fine - they can go to one of the many sources that list the improvements in Iraqi infrastructure for their information.

It would, honestly, disgust me to see a front page spread on a new record store that opened in Fallujah and have to turn to page 23 to see that four more americans gave their lives for their country. It would be hard to imagine a US news source with such an anti-US-troops bias (although I'm sure they exist.)

>First things first....Amnesty International an unbiased
>source??!!....give me a break!

As I said, they have a strong anti-killing bias. If it's a democrat doing the killing they are perceived as anti-democrat; if it's a republican doing the killing they are perceived as anti-republican.

[Guest]

James F. Dunnigan's "Strategy Page" on Iraq. As always, Dunnigan punches all the buttons, cuts through the bull, and tells it like it is.

**********

April 18, 2004: The violence by Sunni and Shia gangs has declined, mainly because so many of the gunmen have been killed (which discourages those still alive.) Attacks on coalition road traffic have increased, mainly because convoys tend to run right through ambushes, returning fire as they go. If the ambushers are careful where they position themselves, they can get off a magazine (30 round) of AK-47 fire with little risk. There are only so many UAVs and gunships out there, so the attackers are less likely to be spotted and pursued because of the larger number of attacks. There are more roadside bombings, and just a lot of gunfire in general.

The request for more troops is not for battling the Shia and Sunni gunmen, because there aren't many of these left willing to come out and fight. The additional 30,000 (20,000 held over and 10,000 additional) is to provide more back up for the Iraqi police and security forces. Without the assurance of coalition troops available to back them up, the Iraqis tend to flee. Although many fought the Sunni and Shia gangs over the last two weeks, there were often not enough coalition troops to come to their aid when they were being overwhelmed by local gunmen. Although there are 130,000 American troops in Iraq, only about 20,000 of them are combat troops, and rarely are more than half (usually a third) of those in action at any one time. There are ten times as many Iraqi police and security troops. But in those few areas where the Sunni and Shia gangs attacked, there were some 10,000 gunmen involved, versus perhaps a third of local Iraqi security troops. Having enough coalition troops to provide backup for the Iraqi security forces would do a lot to lower the crime rate and make life difficult for the many powerful criminal gangs (some just crooks, some religious, political or tribal fighters) still operating throughout the country.

Most Iraqis are rather perplexed at how the foreign Arab media reports events inside Iraq. The Arab media tend towards sensationalism, exaggeration and lots of pure invention. Radical Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr has taken advantage of the fact that many Shia are not only poor, but illiterate, and susceptible to radical preaching promising quick riches if everyone joins in on a short period of violence. All al Sadr has left is his illusions. Trapped in a mosque in Najaf, constantly badgered by more senior clerics (technically, al Sadr is still a student of religious studies, or, a seminarian). Al Sadr is trying to negotiate a deal that will keep him from being arrested for murder. But since the two killings were of Shia clerics, the Iraqi clerics are not eager to let al Sadr get away with murder.

***********

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."