The Iraq thread 4

[Jinef 2]

Here is what we do not want to do:

Blame it all on the soldiers who went there and spit on them when they return home, as the yanks did in Vietnam.

\average person

As for Iraq ... my little western brain is bored of discussing it now, can we just blow it up and be done with it

/average person

Tired....

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]Blame it all on the soldiers who went there and spit on them when they return home, as the yanks did in Vietnam.

I don't know if anyone here is doing that. Personally I feel bad for the majority of them, I know I couldn't feel proud of where I was or what I was doing if it were me, and being aware of the circumstances, it'd take some strong mental contortionism and denial to do so on my part.

From what I've seen and read, it seems a lot of the soldiers over there are just trying to get by and make some good of it in any way they can, others seem to become frustrated and aggressive, as we saw with the british troops.

I've got the most sympathy for the ones that were signed up before 9/11, they're just doing their job. A lot of regular everyday people just making a living as a soldier, which isn't an easy thing to do.

I do however personally have a lot of contempt for the administration that sends these people to die based on shitty intelligence and lies. I spit on them, not the troops.

If one correlates the criticism and  trivialization of this conflict, and the reason why they went into it as spitting on them. Well that's just a truckload of sweaty bollocks. To me it just means the whole situation is fubar and unfortunately for them, they've got to make the best of it.

On the other hand though. They all DID sign up for military service, which precludes possible military action, which involves combat and death and all those other things.

The Iraqi people did not. There are a lot of average every day people like you and me, who have had to make do in a rather crappy country, which was made exponentially crappier since it was invaded and destabilized. I've got the most sympathy for them, they're not the enemy, yet they're bearing the brunt of the hardships caused by this. This is where they live, soldiers if they survive get to go home. A place a hell of a lot nicer than what the majority of Iraqis will ever have.

I don't reserve my sense of humanity for those who share the same country or skin color. The average Iraqi has it much worse than anyone else in this conflict.

[Nemesis6 0]

So because AP called a terrorist "militant" we should now believe that Mccain did not indeed go to Iraq and say those things?

You clearly didn't read much of what I presented to you. The difference between HonestReporting and AP is that HonestReporting doesn't have as much of an agenda as AP does.

[xawery 0]

So because AP called a terrorist "militant" we should now believe that Mccain did not indeed go to Iraq and say those things?

You clearly didn't read much of what I presented to you. The difference between HonestReporting and AP is that HonestReporting doesn't have as much of an agenda as AP does.

Yes, you're right. A website conjured up by 5 British students of Jewish origin with the explicit goal to "help Israel", certainly does strike me as more trustworthy and bias-free than an award-winning, 150 yr. old news agency dedicated to honest reporting. Hidden agenda... Why don't you accuse them of striving towards global communism while you're at it?

[Nemesis6 0]

I won't debate their partiality with you. Their interest to fight media bias clearly came from partiality -- which, in their case, was the British media -- in the media. Denying their research's legality on the ground that the creators were Jewish isn't really that logical, is it?

The whole point, at least in my opinion, is that normal people are more apathetic to demonization of other cultures or people than people who are actually the ones being villainized.

Speaking of winning awards - Arafat got a Nobel peace price... did that make him a man of peace? Same goes for the Associated Press, as far as journalistic professionalism goes.

[ralphwiggum 6]

This is Iraq thread, not Israel thread.

[Baphomet 0]

As far as the AP goes and their coverage if Iraq, by comparison to that site you mentioned they seem less biased. At the very least they're not criticizing other publications of being biased by pushing a personal bias of their own.

To refer to an individual with a term that is commonly used to describe them within their own culture or social circle, doesn't seem like an issue of partiality to me.

When I see "martyr", or "militant" or "mujahideen" I see them referring to those individuals in general (regardless of region) as being defined in concurrence with their culture. I don't see it as an attempt to change my opinion toward or marginalize what the particular individuals in question are or do, it's up to the rest of the article to define that.

To label that as a political bias seems like the response of a politically biased reactionary, in my opinion.

Much as how spanish inquisitors  historically weren't referred to as sadistic murderers by definition, the fighters in Iraq, etc, are referred to as mujahideen or martyrs, as per the tenets of their culture rather than murderers/terrorists, etc. You know just as well as I do what the broad spectrum of armed partisans in Iraq are capable of (ranging from attacking/bombing american troops, to kidnapping, to torture, or killing of civilians, acting in organized outfits or in small groups) . An article doesn't need an unequivocal idealogical bias to point that out. Any intelligent reader would undertand this point. If anything to use such simple terms would paint the diverse range of situations in Iraq with a inaccurately broad brush. So, really I think it depends from article to article what is appropriate.

That to me seems more impartial than labeling them "murderers", "terrorists", etc, as a whole. The Israel article notwithstanding seeing as how it's not Iraq related and seems somewhat irrelevant to the armed conflict that's occuring in Iraq.

Oh and saving the forum from a consecutive post, here's an interesting article

Ex-Delta force member criticizes the situation in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed in which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it.

It's my personal moral/political bias talking, but... I can wholeheartedly agree with what he's saying.

[Nemesis6 0]

I guess all I can do is present further evidence.

[ralphwiggum 6]

last warning.

stick to Iraq discussion, not Israel, not media.

[Baphomet 0]

How can you not discuss Iraq without discussing the politics involved and the media that covers it?

Fair enough though.

[walker 0]

I guess all I can do is present further evidence.

Hi

Nah mate that proves either:

1) It shows how dishonest the name of the site is.

The site is nothing whatever to do with the quality of reporting. It does not for instance speak about the quality of reporting on the US economy or housing or third world debt or the industrial growth of China or science or how well a sports team is doing in the championship or what pop band is best or what criminal fraud takes place in the office or what babies should eat etc. etc.

It does not deal with honest reporting, rather with it deals with one myopic point of view, the very definition of dishonest reporting.

In fact the Myopia of the site would lead me to believe the perpetrators of it were paranoid. Do a search using the dodgy myopic link you gave but enter BBC, or Washington Post or Independant or New York Times or CBS or CSpan or CNN; in place of AP. You ge exactly the same useless drivel writen on each of them.

Note how many times that the site names people as dishonest reporter of the year exceeds the number of years. and includes all the above named Media

In essence your link shows that the site is about putting a slant on things. Another word for this Propaganda.

or

2) that you screwed with Google search to only list "Honest Reporters" web pages but something so obvious will only fool people as idiotic as would try it.

Here is what a proper Google search would have found

http://www.google.com/search?....shonest

If this were your intention however it shows what you think is the level of intelligence of this forum's members, so in that case I would say shame on you.

So which is it:

1) The site should really be called "Read dishonest propaganda here"?

or

2) You think we are all fools?

No Regards Walker

[Nemesis6 0]

You think it was my intention to fool you? I just brought up a google search on the site for content I knew would discredit AP. Talk about being paranoid, geez. The site generally isn't about propaganda, nor "slant". Rather, it is about exposing the likes of which. The name of the website could be more specific to the sort of bias or lack of journalistic professionlism they uncover, I agree, but that's the name they've chosen. Listen, man... the reason you don't like it because you don't agree with the side that it takes, and therefore you dismiss everything it has to say, valid or not.

[ralphwiggum 6]

How can you not discuss Iraq without discussing the politics involved and the media that covers it?  

Fair enough though.

the problem is that current discussion of "media bias" is about to derail the thread.

walker and nemesis6, both of you are PRed for 24 hours for ignoring the instruction

[Jinef 2]

Seriously??? ....

It's a bit bloody stupid sticking blinkers on a discussion thread which clearly has a very encompassing topic is it not.

Iraq neighbours Israel and without the media there would be bollocks all for anyone in here to chat about, as our entire world view is constructed by the media. 2 good reasons for it to be included in the discussion.

I see this as a case of treating/discussing the symptoms instead of the causes ...

How far would medicine advance if doctors simply treated what was bloody obvious instead of the more subtle causes .... not far.

I do hope after 4 threads and an Nth number of posts people may have realised a war is going on in Iraq and that people are dying ........ oh we have? Ok the bloody obvious problem has been identified.

Well we cannot look at the causes for this so let's just sit here posting multiple articles on how many people died in how many different ways in so many different areas .... how constructive.

Without the advanced media of today intelligence services would not have been so informed of Iraqi 'WMD' and the public would not even know Iraq exists. The media is what enables a nation to go to war in modern times ..... so to label it as irrelevant to a discussion about war is just slightly retarded.

If however you would like to keep the threads seperate i'm sure we could create some new threads ....

The Iraq Thread

The Israel In Relation to Iraq Thread

The Media In Relation to Iraq Thread

The UN In Relation to Iraq Thread

The Global Economy In Relation to Iraq Thread

The Agricultural policy of Venezuela In Relation to Iraq Thread

[ralphwiggum 6]

unfortunately, the discussion turned in to a media bias discussion, which is away from the thread's original discussion. If it was debating over media's report of events in Iraq, it would be a borderline case, but this discussion went directly to media bias discussion.

[Jinef 2]

Fair enuff.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The sacked generals have started to go public about Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Why Iraq was a mistake

By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

Monday, April 10, 2006 Posted: 1940 GMT (0340 HKT)

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture -- who became career members of the military during those rough times -- the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again.

From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq -- an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat -- al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough...

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/newbold.iraq.tm/index.html

Follow link for the full story and its resounding condemnation of TBA

General Newbold is in fact the third general, in as many weeks, to castigate Donald Rumsfeld and TBA for mishandling Iraq and failing to take the general staffs advice.

Like General Anthony C. Zinni and Army General Eric Shinseki; Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold is calling on Donald Rumsfeld to resign for the massive mistakes he made on the invasion of Iraq.

Most people know we went into Iraq with too few troops it was something I as well as all the experienced millitary people on this forum also said.

The sooner these idiots in TBA get the sack the better.

Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

The sacked generals have started to go public about Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Why Iraq was a mistake

By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

Monday, April 10, 2006 Posted: 1940 GMT (0340 HKT)

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war.

This guy was sacked? Nope:

Quote[/b] ]General With a Key Pentagon Role to Retire

By Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, May 2, 2002; Page A13

Note the date. There was no war in Iraq to object to then. Nor does the news article attribute his reasons for retirement for similar objections to the war in Afghanistan, which he was heavily involved in. Read the whole article. He was unmotivated and had family considerations.

An iteresting fact is that this WP article states:

Quote[/b] ]Newbold achieved prominence again on Oct. 16, when he said at a Pentagon briefing that the Taliban militia then ruling Afghanistan had been "eviscerated" by U.S. bombing. His choice of words was subsequently mocked by Rumsfeld and by Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Newbold stopped appearing at Pentagon briefings.

That was an incorrect and premature conclusion by Newbold. And now he accuses the White House and the Pentagon of similar miscalcuations - and all after the fact?

What a visionary - not.

[walker 0]

Hi Avon

As you know people get told to resign rather than be sacked if they cause a lot of problems for the administration.So your argument just does not fly.

Muddying the waters as it apears to me you are doing is an interesting tactic; it seems to me to be one of your favoured debating tactics but not one I intend to fall into.

I intend to get back to the facts:

The Facts

1)The fact is that now three senior generals have now come out and said the Rumsfeld should resign.

2)They all point out that members of the Pentagon General staff warned TBA there were not enough troops in Rumsfeld's Plan; as did Colin Powel

3)TBA in a most cavalear and could not care less fashion threw out existing plans for the invasion and most importantly the stabalisation of Iraq.

4)Iraq is turning into the very quagmire all those Generals with experience of Vietnam feared.

5)TBA apears to have no exit strategy

6)There are not enough troops in Iraq

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

As you know people get told to resign rather than be sacked if they cause a lot of problems for the administration.So your argument just does not fly.

Wait a minute. You have zero facts to base yourself on. I bring the original Washington Post article from May 2002 that states why he resigned. This new article of your claims that he started making objections 4 months before the Iraq war, which is months after his already announced resignation.

And you have the nerve to say my arguments don't fly?!

You're flying alright. Bartender, give me a swig of whatever Walker's drinking!

Quote[/b] ]Muddying the waters as it apears to me you are doing is an interesting tactic; it seems to me to be one of your favoured debating tactics but not one I intend to fall into.

But it is exactly that tactic which you employ. This is the pot calling the kettle black. You ignore the details to create a nice fuzzy picture of what you want everything to be.

Quote[/b] ]

I intend to get back to the facts:

The Facts

1)The fact is that now three senior generals have now come out and said the Rumsfeld should resign.

OK. I can understand that.

BTW, how many generals think otherwise? Just the facts, please.

Quote[/b] ]2)They all point out that members of the Pentagon General staff warned TBA there were not enough troops in Rumsfeld's Plan; as did Colin Powel

OK.

Quote[/b] ]3)TBA in a most cavalear and could not care less fashion

Were you there?

Quote[/b] ]threw out existing plans for the invasion and most importantly the stabalisation of Iraq.

Could be Which/whose plans? Gotta link?

Quote[/b] ]4)Iraq is turning into the very quagmire all those Generals with experience of Vietnam feared.

Yes and no.

Quote[/b] ]5)TBA apears to have no exit strategy

It's a fact that "appears" means it's not a fact.

Quote[/b] ]6)There are not enough troops in Iraq

That's a possibility which I don't discount.

[Jinef 2]

I will play the Devil's Advocate.

@Walker

> Could you provide evidence to show that TBA discarded original plans for invasion and re-stablisation of a country. Invasion plans for something like this aren't exactly easy to whip up in 10 minutes thus I understand why people are skeptical.

@Avon

> It is unrealistic to expect Walker to give you a factual representation of the opinions of the higher echelons of command in the US military regarding the Iraq war. Most of them would not want their opinions public knowledge, simply because any noise-making in any large organisation is looked upon with disdain.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq is turning into the very quagmire all those Generals with experience of Vietnam feared.

I disagree.

Different military organisation.

Different terrain.

Different mission.

Different public opinion.

Different goals.

Different ORBAT.

It is a fairly unique scenario.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

little footage for you

http://www.ifilm.com/player/?ifilmId=2677403&refsite=7063

probably related with this incident

http://www.sandline.com/hotlinks/Wash_Post-Private_guards.html

[walker 0]

Hi all

More senior US Generals are lining up to castigate Rumsfeld and call for his resignation.

In a unpresident show of no confidense in the Secretary of Defense there are now five US Generals calling on Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

Army General Anthony C. Zinni, Army General Eric Shinseki, Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold have all called now called on Rumsfeld to resign in less than a month.

This along with an increasing clamour from other generals expressing a lack of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld as well as lower down the ranks makes Donald Rumsfeld the most disliked US Secretary of Defence since the Civil War.

Quote[/b] ]Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals

Ex-Iraq Commander Calls for Resignation

By Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 13, 2006; Page A01

The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.

"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."

Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said earlier yesterday on CNN.

Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army: It is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...._2.html

Meenwhile the NeoCons of TBA are running a spin program to begin blaming any failures in Iraq on the military in a rerun of blaming the CIA for the misuse of National Security Intelligence in the Iraq war. The plan is apparently to start calling any US Military who criticizes TBA on Iraq traitors, or say they are aiding the enemy; others are being targeted for smear campaigns of their military records and sanity in actions similar to what happened to Senators John McCain and John Kerry.

Quote[/b] ]Other retired generals said they think it is unlikely that the denunciations of Rumsfeld and his aides will cease.

"A lot of them are hugely frustrated," in part because Rumsfeld gave the impression that "military advice was neither required nor desired" in the planning for the Iraq war, said retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who until last year commanded Marine forces in the Pacific Theater. He said he is sensing much anger among Americans over the administration's handling of the war and thinks the continuing criticism from military professionals will fuel that anger as the November elections approach. He declined to discuss his own views.

Another retired officer, Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, said he believes that his peer group is "a pretty closemouthed bunch" but that, even so, his sense is "everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out."

He emphatically agrees, Riggs said, explaining that he believes Rumsfeld and his advisers have "made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict."

Ibid

I think that any smear campaigns raised by NeoCons and repeated on this forum should be roundly condemned.

Kind Regards Walker

[Ironsight 1]

From Jane's Defence this week:

Quote[/b] ]USMC looks to revive OV-10s for use in Iraq

The US Marine Corps is looking at the possibility of reviving the retired OV-10 Bronco observation aircraft for use in Iraq, according to a top.......

It is not clear if the OV-10 inventory is in good enough shape to be sent into combat * The plan is one of several looking at retired or converted civilian aircraft.

Does anyone has more info regarding this? I can't see the article on Jane's as I don't have a full subscription.

[herman01 0]

Very few wars in history have actually not been fought for reasons other than economic expansion or protection and I'm without doubt that the war in Iraq will be judged by history any diffrently. The fact is that TBA had decided to go to war with Iraq long before this war. Its part of NeoCon agenda in fact there is a document signed by many of the top neo cons including Cheney, Rumsfield some of the Bush's and etc.. I can't remember this document but it is easy to find if you want to look for it. The evidence of this is overwhelming, more and more evidence is disclosed everyday. Look at all the high level CIA officials that have testifed to it. How many logs can you add to this fire. The fact is some people will believe in something no matter how much evidence is contrary becuase to go against would make them feel uncomfortable and wrong. I served a 15 month tour in Iraq and always thought it was funny when people thanked me for defending their freedoms when in fact thats not really true TBA was busy waving a 4th Amendment right with his blantly illegal wiretap. The president is not above the law. The terroist are winning becuase we are giving up are libertys one at a time to feel safe. Also you should remeber that the people who aspire for positions of power are never good people. Good people just unfornatley don't aspire to have control. If you only thing Bush is good man and makes good decisions than you are truely blind and will help us to all learn again the mistakes that are all over history when goverments lie and manipulate their populations. The incompentence is also criminal. I even thought that an insurgency would be awaiting us once we had been able to easily destroy Saddams disloyal and delapadated army. I'm sure someone will threaten on this thread and tell me that I'm wrong and that the "liberal media" has mislead me. They will also want to say that I'm probably lying about my military service also. Oh well, I just wanted to have my say why are watch my country like other countries and civilizations of the past go to war for reasons of ecomomic and political power while these people who will never experience the true horror that is war and any of that gains of the conflict will be credited to their image and legacy. I just wish people would change. Its to bad we live such short lives maybe if we lived longer we could truely learn are mistakes and not have learn them over again. In particular the on gloirous animal like behavior that we call war.