What they don't show us here in the US [Archive]

View Full Version : What they don't show us here in the US

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 15:54

For those readers in other parts of the world that are dumbfounded by US attitudes on this war, understand that our media are caving to our government and refusing to air:

any footage of US POWs (we do get to see Iraqi POWs though)
any footage of Iraqi civilian casualties
any footage of damaged civilian structures (apartments for instance)
substantial footage of any anti-war protests around the world
substantial reporting on the water crisis in Basra

If you understand this distorted image of the world that the US population is being presented then perhaps you can understand the naive attitudes of so many in the US population...

So much for the free press.

Mize
(ducks as all the "you're a communist!" twits rev their engines)

Joe DeFuria

25-Mar-2003, 16:01

any footage of US POWs (we do get to see Iraqi POWs though)

Wrong, I have seen much footage of US POWs. And I have not seen any footage of Iraqi POWs in any context other than the actual surrendering process.

any footage of Iraqi civilian casualties

True, I have not yet visually seen Iraqi civilian casualties, though they have been reported on.

any footage of damaged civilian structures (apartments for instance)

Again, not seen visually (doesn't help that US media has been kicked out of Baghdad).

substantial footage of any anti-war protests around the world

Are you kidding?

substantial reporting on the water crisis in Basra

Please define "substantial?" It's been reported on with every news site I've seen. Do you mean "sensationalize?"

If you understand this distorted image of the world that the US population is being presented then perhaps you can understand the naive attitudes of so many in the US population...

:roll:

covermye

25-Mar-2003, 16:05

understand that our media are caving to our government and refusing to air:

any footage of US POWs (we do get to see Iraqi POWs though)
Wrong. I saw footage of US POW's just last night (the two Apache pilots). I also saw censored clips of the original POW footage. Why the hell is this a negative? Of what benefit would it be to show closeups of the dead POW's that Iraq had?

any footage of Iraqi civilian casualties
Well, I haven't seen closeups, but I HAVE seen TONS of reports about this being a huge negative of the war. You're reaching for a "conspiracy" that's not there. It would just be in poor taste to show civilian casualties in detail as news footage. Everyone knows it's happenned. Why put it on primetime news? Hint: It's not because the US media "caved" to the government.

any footage of damaged civilian structures (apartments for instance)
Wrong. Saw visual evidence of this more than once so far.

substantial footage of any anti-war protests around the world
substantial reporting on the water crisis in Basra
Substantial must be in the eye of the beholder. I've seen anti-war protests all over the TV since the war started (before, actually). We've had substantial coverage of anti-war events in this area (Chicago/Indy news) on our local news channels.

Just this morning, I saw on FOX news a report about the water problem in Basra and how troops are currently assembling above-ground pipelines to help solve the issue.

If you understand this distorted image of the world that the US population is being presented then perhaps you can understand the naive attitudes of so many in the US population...

Please! Distortion exists on all sides. As for your quote about "naive attitutdes", ditto.

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 16:23

IMHO the US media is being used to form US public opinion on the war. In '91 we got to see footage of collateral damage (civilian deaths) - today we get no such footage even though it is airing all over the rest of the world (it has NOTHING to do with throwing out US reporters). We're also not seeing the anger of the Iraqi civilian population which is airing elsewhere. Even the BBC is covering these things while sources such as CNN and FOX are spinning this thing as positively as they can.

The sad fact is that the US media is biased in favor of this war...to quote a foreign journalist, the staff of FOX news exhibited "palpable glee" at the outbreak of war. It's being presented as a video game and not a war. I think that our *not* seeing the coverage that the rest of the world is seeing puts us drastically out of touch with the realities of this war and makes us look like imperialist twits.

Mize

epicstruggle

25-Mar-2003, 16:36

Yes, I guess I should have seen this coming. Blame the oil people, Blame the military people, blame the right wing people. Now blame the media. Who are you going to blame next?

Ps, ive seen alot of coverage of the US POW. Ive heard alot about the water/food crisis in Basra. Even from koffi anan(sp?). How do you expect the US media to cover baghdad, when the CNN reporters are kicked out. There have been reports of civilian deaths. Sorry if you like to see dead bodies, but I dont and Im sure most americans dont want to see it either.

later,

RussSchultz

25-Mar-2003, 16:51

any footage of Iraqi civilian casualties

That's the only one I'll agree with you on, but I believe that its not anything new.

We generally don't have such grizzly pictures on the news, for any conflict, ours or other peoples. We certainly don't dwell on them like Al Jazeera and the other Arab medias have.

Al Jazeera, just like Fox, gets their money indirectly through pandering to their audience. The audience wants to see the US as demons, they want to see all the pain and suffering so they can blame it on the zionists.

And yes, there's is a US reporter presence in Bagdad. Peter Arnett is there, as is some CBS reporters. Though I have noticed that Peter Arnett is no longer broadcasting video like he was on the first day.

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 16:56

Nate Thayer is there too although he and his handlers are telling people he German to keep him alive. Here's his latest on the anger of Iraqi civilians towards Americans: http://www.msnbc.com/news/889982.asp

I agree that Al Jazeera panders to their audience with more footage of the civilian carnage, but the US networks and papers are showing NONE. This is entirely different than either Kosovo or the '91 war....why? Don't tell me it's because the journalists were kicked out - the footage is available if they want to tell the whole story.

Mize

epicstruggle

25-Mar-2003, 17:04

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 17:04

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 17:06

During 9/11 there were many shots of people who were jumping from the buildings, but this was not shown on tv. Later, some of the cnn reporters said that they had decided not to show the bodies on the ground. Its usual for the media in the US not to show that kinda stuff. Its very rare. Not sure if there is an audience for that stuff, at least in the US.

later,

Sorry to burst this bubble, but I have the images of people jumping from the trade towers emblazed in my memory - it was certainly shown on TV...something I'll never forget.

Mize

Joe DeFuria

25-Mar-2003, 17:07

his latest on the anger of Iraqi civilians towards Americans: http://www.msnbc.com/news/889982.asp

Gee...I thought stuff like that wasn't reported by the American media?

[quote]This is entirely different than either Kosovo or the '91 war....why?

Is it different?

Don't tell me it's because the journalists were kicked out -

I said it doesn't help.

In other words, if you don't obtain the footage YOURSELF, and are getting info from OTHER "news sources", then there are decisions to be made on how reliable and accurate the footage is.

the footage is available if they want to tell the whole story.

Or if they want to tell the story that they have no way of knowing the legitimacy or accuracy.

U.S. media is trying to not show POW videos, for example, until the Penatagon acknowledges them as at least likely to be legit, and the families are notified first..

RussSchultz

25-Mar-2003, 17:14

We generally don't have such grizzly pictures on the news, for any conflict, ours or other peoples.

Huh? How do you figure? We've shown carnage unlimited from suicide bomb attacks in Israel...we showed horrendously grissly footage from Somalia...we showed terribly graphic images during the '91 war as well. Maybe I'm overly affected by this thing (my goddaughter is Iraqi), but it seems the US media is shielding the public from the realities of this war.

I'm sorry, we generally do not show pictures of babies with half their heads. We don't show gaping wounds with bones protruding. We don't dwell on closeups of people with bullet wounds to their foreheads.

Normally, that which is shown on news channels here is corpses from a distance, blood on the walls, dead covered by blankets, etc. And those are generally only as stills or as short clips as backdrops for the talking head story.

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 17:14

his latest on the anger of Iraqi civilians towards Americans: http://www.msnbc.com/news/889982.asp

Gee...I thought stuff like that wasn't reported by the American media?

Did you see how far I had to dig for it? Do you really think the average American will read this? Why doesn't FOX or CNN report on it?

As I said above - maybe I'm a bit emotionally connected with this thing and it slants my interpretation of things, but I honestly feel the reporting we've seen domestically is biased in favor of the video-game mentality toward war.

Mize

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 17:17

Joe DeFuria

25-Mar-2003, 17:23

Did you see how far I had to dig for it? Do you really think the average American will read this? Why doesn't FOX or CNN report on it?

So you just think it should be sensationalized and headlined, and not simply reported on.

As I said above - maybe I'm a bit emotionally connected with this thing and it slants my interpretation of things, but I honestly feel the reporting we've seen domestically is biased in favor of the video-game mentality toward war.

I do understand where you're coming from, and I do agree that much of the U.S. journalists, at least initially, does have that "video-game" like mentality. However, I don't see that as hindering their reporting of the facts.

MrsSkywalker

25-Mar-2003, 17:23

And yes, there's is a US reporter presence in Bagdad. Peter Arnett is there, as is some CBS reporters. Though I have noticed that Peter Arnett is no longer broadcasting video like he was on the first day.

In a call-in-to-report segment he said that they are not allowed to leave their hotel anymore. They did show that Iraqis "searching for spec ops guys" crap the other day, but that was, conveniently, right in front of the hotel. The images they have been showing are pretty much all from that hotel roof, and there really didn't seem like they can see too much from up there... The city is really big, housing nearly 5 million citizens. How much can you see from the roof of one hotel? Not sure how much that has to do with it, but that's what he said when he called in.

epicstruggle

25-Mar-2003, 17:34

I'm certainly not asking for that kind of grissly imagery...just shots akin to what you see in the European or even British media...bandaged children, fathers weeping over dead or wounded children. War is ugly and this is far from a "clean" mission. Americans should know that when they form their opinions.
Mize
Are you talking about things like this. Ive seen these images quite a bit on cnn:
child bandaged
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/gallery.iraq.war.0324/04.warfare.ap.jpg

civilian structure destroyed
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/gallery.iraq.war.0324/01.damage.ap.jpg
man crying
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/gallery.iraq.war.0324/04.damage.ap.jpg
Other images
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/gallery.iraq.war.0324/02.reaction.ap.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/gallery.iraq.war.0323/03.damage.ap.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/gallery.iraq.war.0323/01.damage.ap.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/gallery.iraq.war.0323/01.reaction.ap.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/gallery.iraq.war.0322/3.warfare.ap.jpg
I wish I could encode and distribute video from cnn. because i do see every you think they dont. they just dont show it every other second.

I hope I have informed you abit. :)
later,

Sharkfood

25-Mar-2003, 17:38

Why doesn't FOX or CNN report on it?

Both have reported on every item you have listed in your original post... with the exception of the water shortage in Basra, which I've only seen FOX report (with a somewhat positive spin, explaining Coalition forces have been working hard to restore water as well as electricity in the war ravaged city.. and hope to have this established in the next 24-48 hours).

MrsSkywalker

25-Mar-2003, 17:41

Did you see how far I had to dig for it?

Um, MSNBC is digging?

Joe DeFuria

25-Mar-2003, 17:52

I'm sorry, we generally do not show pictures of babies with half their heads. We don't show gaping wounds with bones protruding. We don't dwell on closeups of people with bullet wounds to their foreheads.

Clarification needed.

We ARE shown such things, but not typically by the media. It's shown by the "entertainment" industry....you know...those guys who in the majority are "opposed to war and violence". :roll:

Sxotty

25-Mar-2003, 18:15

I think he just wanted to say that the US media is as full of deceit and lies as other media around the world, but unfortuantely it isn't oh well.

I have seen plenty of what you described, and I saw stuff about the food and water shortage quite early on PBS, which is government owned basically so our government is discusing Iraqi civillian casulties, and the water/humanitaria crisis. The Brits are about to get alot worse casulties going in to Basara simply to help out the humanitarian problem, and all people do is complain that we caused it, well there is quite a bit of evidence showing that Saddam's forces shut off the water to basara, not the coalition (and even if we do this sort of thing which most suggest we should, it is accidental)

Unfortunately just showing dead bodies doesn't mean very much or change anything unless you can establish who, how, why. And the same goes for casulties.
1718: Popular uprising reported in Basra. British troops said to be firing into the city where Iraqi soldiers were shooting at civilian protesters.

thats from the bbc, so when you see Iraqi civilians dead remeber who killed them is important

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 18:24

deleted

Yes, pictures like that are exactly what I'm talking about - I've not seen them on CNN or FOX at all. Where did you get those? I read cnn's front page several times a day and never found those there.

I hope I have informed you abit. :)
later,

That you have.

Mize

Heathen

25-Mar-2003, 18:27

Talking of reporting, seems the inhabitants of Basra have had enough of Saddam and are launching a popular uprising against any pro-saddam forces in the city. British forces are currently providing fire support and are preapring to move into the city.

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 18:28

Heathen

25-Mar-2003, 18:31

Well I'm watching live on TV, I almost feel sorry for the Pro saddam force the inhabitants of Basra are REALLY REALLY pissed.

Mariner

25-Mar-2003, 18:43

I think this is what they were expecting to happen - most of the inhabitants of Basra are Shiite muslims, I believe, and Saddam's regime (who are Sunni muslims) have treated them badly for years.

I expect this is why they publically announced that they were going to take Basra - mainly to spur on an uprising in the city.

RussSchultz

25-Mar-2003, 18:56

I really really really really hope this is true, and not more psy-ops from the Pentagon.

(And yes, I think the Pentagon has been using the US media as tools for psy-ops)

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 18:58

I just heard one report that said the rioting civilians have attacked both Iraqi and British forces. The report said that one Brit was killed. No idea if it's true of course...but it does lessen the likelihood of it being psyops.

Mize

RussSchultz

25-Mar-2003, 19:10

Foxnews of course represents it as a popular uprising. no big suprise there. What I did get a kick out of was some of the text.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82088,00.html
"I think that they feel a threat to their security by these Baath party, special Republican Guard troops, that they're terrorizining their neighborhood," he said.

He's been taking speech lessons from Bush. ;)

Vince

25-Mar-2003, 19:24

I really hope this is true. We need some positive news.

Wait, being outside of Baghdad after 4 days with less casulties than in '91 isn't positive? The 4th ID is 50miles outside of Baghdad, haing killed over 400 Iraqi's in the last 2 days alone and still, AFAIK, not suffered a single loss. How is that not positive?

You see, this is what happens when people who aren't in the military watch real-time tactical combat and have nothing to base it on.

Joe DeFuria

25-Mar-2003, 19:26

Foxnews of course represents it as a popular uprising. no big suprise there. What I did get a kick out of was some of the text.

Honestly, people like to read a bias where I'm not sure it exists. The headline on the front page that links to that story on FoxNews labels it as a rumor:

Basra Said to Be in Rebellion
Rumors of Shiite anti-government uprising in Iraq's second city

They don't represent it as a popular uprising, they say there are REPORTS that it is a popular uprising.

Granted, this is the kind of thing that leads to people beliving it is a "fact" that there is a popular uprising. But I think that's more a fault of people not actually reading what's in print.

A second story on FoxNews:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82098,00.html

"We've had reports we can't substantiate as of yet of an uprising in Basra. We are closely monitoring the situation," said U.S. Marine Maj. David C. Andersen.

In other words, the "facts" are there...but how one interprets them is another question altogether.

He's been taking speech lessons from Bush. ;)

Lol! ;)

RussSchultz

25-Mar-2003, 19:27

Vince, beyond just militarily, there just hasn't been much political good news.

A popular uprising against Saddam's regime in Basra would be the first bit of good political news.

Vince

25-Mar-2003, 19:31

Vince, beyond just militarily, there just hasn't been much political good news.

(a) This is a military campaign, politics is a distant second. When politics gets involved, the ghost of Vietnam ensues.
(b) Like what? The internal politics of the situation (populace) are in America's favor. It's not like these people just woke-up this morning and decided to hate Saddam and revolt - it's only a matter of time. The only political problems are in foreign ME countries and shouldn't domninate our policies.

Mize

25-Mar-2003, 19:33

(b) Like what?

Not speaking for Russ, but a huge bit of politically good news would be an Iraqi population that *wants* this war (and the ouster of Saddam) and sides with the US. A popular uprising would be this type of good news.

Mize

Vince

25-Mar-2003, 19:37

I edited the message because I knew someone would say this, was just too slow.

The basic idea is simple. The Iraqi people revolting today, didn't just decide to hate Saddam and put their lives on the line to oust the Regime today. These feelings are there, but repressed.

As stated by many Iraqi exiles,when the populace knows they can sucessfully revolt and will have coalition support - they will.

Believe it or not, but the world isn't all you see or hear on CNN. Just because some media reporter thats embedded only sees one small viewpoint of the entire geo-political plane in that area and reports based on that... doesn't mean thats all that exists.

Joe DeFuria

25-Mar-2003, 19:37

Not speaking for Russ, but a huge bit of politically good news would be an Iraqi population that *wants* this war (and the ouster of Saddam) and sides with the US. A popular uprising would be this type of good news.

I'll straddle the fence here.

It's good news is, IMO, to the extent that it signals (at least in the Shiite territory) less bloodshed in the "peace-keeping" phase of the operation. I don't care about the politics of it (whether the coalition is viewed by others as liberators or occupiers), but I do care that less people on both sides will be killed if once Sadam is out, the populace is grateful.

Heathen

25-Mar-2003, 19:56

Rebellion is Basra
1) It's Real or as real as British troops on the ground can see.
2) The brit was killed earlier in the day in an unrelated issue.
3) What seems to have been the fuse is an attempted breakout by a bunch of Iraqi Armour. The Royal Scots dragoon Guards (A UK unit btw :wink: ) took them out. Additionally the Pro-Saddam forces in the city have also been brutalizing the inhabitants. Earlier this morning a British spec-ops unit went into Basra and snatched the head of the Baath party in the city and killed all of his lackeys.
4) The UK troops on the outskirts are intending to move into the city in the morning. However if the Pro-Saddam forces get too brutal we may go in earlier.

PS: It's the 3rd ID.

RussSchultz

25-Mar-2003, 20:02

Like what? The internal politics of the situation (populace) are in America's favor. It's not like these people just woke-up this morning and decided to hate Saddam and revolt - it's only a matter of time.

That certainly is what I'd like to believe also.

My fear is that we miscalculated how much local popular support there would be, and consequently whether we'd be seen as liberators or new oppressors. In one case we'd be welcomed and helped, in the other we'd be stymied--just like in Vietnam.

This uprising could finally be some proof that the assertations that "the Iraqi people will love us for this" will bear fruit.

Heathen

25-Mar-2003, 20:03

The Shi'ites may not 'love us' but one thing is for certain, they hate Saddam. 10,000 slaughtered in the popular uprising after the gulf war.

Sxotty

25-Mar-2003, 20:29

The Iraqi people are pretty pissed at us, those 10000 killed were our fault, we told them we would support an uprising, then when we signed the cease fire we were a little stupid (We had a Norman do it not a politician) and allowed Iraq to fly armed helicopters which they promptly employed to slaughter the rebels. So they are rightly a little grumpy at us, perhaps we should learn from that, and not encourage revolt in the future unless we truly will back it up.

Crusher

25-Mar-2003, 21:09

Both have reported on every item you have listed in your original post... with the exception of the water shortage in Basra, which I've only seen FOX report

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.aid/index.html

Basra's population of 1.7 million has been without water and electricity for at least two days

It's also mentioned, and a link to that story is provided, in most of the other stories on CNN.com today.

Mize

28-Mar-2003, 13:17

This was the lead story on Sky News yesterday morning:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12276351,00.html

It was also reported by the BBC.

It has STILL not been reported by CNN, FOX or any of the major US media.

Care to tell me why this is guys?

Mize

epicstruggle

28-Mar-2003, 13:38

actually they have reported it. looking for link. but at least cnn ran a story on this in their tv coverage. I think they have been concentrating on other parts of the war. had someone died (god forbid) then this would have played much bigger part of the news covereage.

later,

Silent_One

28-Mar-2003, 13:45

epicstruggle wrote:actually they have reported it. looking for link. but at least cnn ran a story on this in their tv coverage.
Correct. That was reported lats night on CNN's TV coverage.

RussSchultz

28-Mar-2003, 13:45

http://www.msnbc.com/news/888496.asp

Its being reported, its just not being focused on.

epicstruggle

28-Mar-2003, 14:01

its amazing how people tell us that the media in the US doesnt report some story, and within hours we can contradict them. :) I wish these anti-war people would stop thinking that we live under a rock.

Im curious whether or not aljazeere is reporting all of the things saddams is doing, has done, to his people includeing:
human shields, human shredders, hostages to force man to fight, having military dress in civilian chlothes. now that would suprise me if they reported on it.

later,

Mize

28-Mar-2003, 14:20

I asked three of my people if they'd heard about this friendly fire incident. None had and all are watching the war. I watched two hours of CNN/FOX last night and one hour this morning and it wasn't covered. Someone found a non-headline MSNBC link - congrats. The fact is the media is trying to paint this situation as better than it is. Hell we're doubling the force there and Rummy expects us to believe this was part of his plan. Yeah right.

RussSchultz

28-Mar-2003, 14:26

epicstruggle

28-Mar-2003, 14:31

Mize

28-Mar-2003, 14:38

Rummy

That explains quite a bit.

Why do you insist on trying to marginalize your political hatreds with ad-hominem attacks and childish name games? It doesn't work, and it only undermines your position's legitimacy.

That's logical. The fact is that this guy went against the recommendations of his top generals and the CIA. He deployed a prototype concept for war and it isn't working as it was supposed to. What you don't know or understand is that I'm not anti-war. I'm anti the stupid way in which this war was started and the stupid ways in which it's being waged.

Three light divisions? Idiocy. In '91 we had 12 heavy divisions and that's what should be there now and would be if not for this moron of a Defense Secretary. He just doesn't listen to the experts around him.

Mize

Mize

28-Mar-2003, 14:41

theyve mentioned the friendly fire quite a bit. not only that particular incident. you have the british jet getting hit by the patriot system, the helicopter crash, the 2 helicopter hitting each other, the sandstorm that caused one or two vehicles to get rammed by tanks. all this was covered. but in your defence. you have to watch more than 3 hours worth of news to get an accurate picture of whats happening. i would say you need to watch 3-4 hours of continuous news, plus 2-3 hours of news at random times. they really do cover alot of ground.

later,

This really serves to make my point though; the average American doesn't have a clue how bad things are at the moment because the media is tiptoeing around the problems. Americans should have to dig to the third page of MSNBC or watch Sky News or 4 hours of coverage to find out about US casualties.

Mize

RussSchultz

28-Mar-2003, 14:52

Mize

28-Mar-2003, 15:03

epicstruggle

28-Mar-2003, 15:52

This really serves to make my point though; the average American doesn't have a clue how bad things are at the moment because the media is tiptoeing around the problems. Americans should have to dig to the third page of MSNBC or watch Sky News or 4 hours of coverage to find out about US casualties.
Mize

What the heck are you talking about, this is bad? about 24 military casualties, about a dozen MIAs/POWs. And about 50 miles from bhagdad. and you think this is bad. wow. this is perhapes one of the better scenarios the military envisioned. and where do you get tiptoeing i just mentioned most of the setbacks and they have been covering it all the time.

Personally I think you(mize) have been using your head to inspect your waste production facility a bit too much. get you head out of there and start thinking. :wink: Please answer this question for me, mize, are you for or against this war. are you for or against the liberation of the people of iraq? do you believe that saddam has been torturing his people to stay in power. do you know that about 5000 were dying per month during the last 12 years of saddams regime, because he used the oil for food program to build his military and palaces?

Please answer the questions above.

later,

Deflection

28-Mar-2003, 16:19

As I said. You've got a point which you've now backed up with reasoning. But calling him "Rummy" only de-legitimizes your arguments and lumps you into a different group whos arguments are simply ludicrous.

I suppose you're right, but it's hard not to get a bit irate with Rumsfeld's mistakes since they're costing more casualties on both sides, damaging our reputation with the world and the Iraqi civilian population and costing us enormous amounts of money to correct.

Mize

I'm not sure I would so hard on Rumsfeld, yet. A major battles hasn't even been fought. Also, there have been a lot of mistakes made by gov'ts around the world on this one.

Btw, I heard about the friendly fire from MSNBC and CNN tv. It's there but of course it will not be shown around the clock like other stations will.

Mize

28-Mar-2003, 16:57

What the heck are you talking about, this is bad?

So ragged and endangered supply lines, and the lack of the support - anger and contempt might be better words - of the people we're "liberating" (more on that later) are okay with you?

Personally I think you(mize) have been using your head to inspect your waste production facility a bit too much.

Now there's a good argument.

Please answer this question for me

Ah yes, here's the part where you try to make it a black and white issue. Fine I'll play just so you can simplify things to your level.

mize, are you for or against this war.

I believe that war may have been inevitable but that this one was approached chaotically and ineptly. I believe we could have built a real coalition where the partners actually contributed something other than invoices. I believe a more competent president , one with some experience in foreign relations and diplomacy, could have done this just as Bush Sr. did.

I believe that, as it is being handled and the way it was initiated, this war is not in the best long-term interests of the US or the region. In this area I agree with both the CIA and the Dept. of State - that this approach will destabilize the region and increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against US interests.

That said, we are at war. I don't like the way we got here, but I want it won quickly and decisively. In this area I feel that Rumsfeld has failed us. I believe he used too small a force with too little armor and that he should have waged an air war first.

are you for or against the liberation of the people of iraq?

This war isn't about the liberation of the Iraqi people. Don't be so naive. Originally this war was about WMDs. When that didn't stick it was about 911. When that didn't stick it was about liberating the Iraqi people. Don't kid yourself, this war is about resources and money and those are VALID reasons to go to war, but don't expect me to buy into the latest propaganda.

I *am* for liberating the Iraqi people, however. After all, we helped create the evil dictator that has oppressed them all these years - we ought to at least help get rid of him. Unfortunately we're going about this "liberation" in the wrong way...so much so that the people being liberated are turning against us rather than welcoming us as liberators.

My best friend grew up in Iraq (I'm godfather to his daughter) so I know a bit about how the Iraqi people feel about our approach. I'm sure you, however, know better, right?

do you believe that saddam has been torturing his people to stay in power. do you know that about 5000 were dying per month during the last 12 years of saddams regime, because he used the oil for food program to build his military and palaces?

My best friend, his two brothers, his parents, his cousins, aunts and uncles all fled Iraq - I know far better than you about Saddam. My buddy's parents only got out in '01 so I can tell you stories about life as a pharmacist in a sanctioned Iraq if you really want.

The sad fact is that Saddam was nowhere near the ruthless maniac he is today before the '91 war and sanctions. What fails to make me proud in all of this are the following:
1. We helped create Saddam while Bush Sr. headed the CIA. Both Rumsfeld and Bob Dole have met the man and patted his back.
2. We encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and then watched as they were mowed down, providing no help.

Yes, Saddam should be taken out and he's largely our responsability so we should certainly help. There are, however, better - much better - ways than this.

Thoughtfully yours,

Mize

DemoCoder

28-Mar-2003, 17:03

Mize, your problem is, these friendly fire incidents are reported for the minor things they are. They appear on CNN, FOX, etc but aren't the top story repeated over and over. If you want for like 1 hr, you will see them. MSNBC *every 15 minutes* does a story recap, and *every 30 minutes* has a "Listening Post" segment that covers the top stories in foreign media.

In the European media, they take these incidents and amplify them like Al-Jazeera, showing them over and over.

The friendly fire incidents are regrettable, but these have happened in every war, and to a much greater number. We expect them here. We expect some bombs to go astray. We expect some marines, in a sandstorm, with hardly any sleep in 9 days to make some mistakes. It is a tragedy, but it is not a serious problem with the battle plan.

There is no battleplan that will avoid friendly fire or civilian deaths.

Again, if you want to prove yourself wrong, simply watch MSNBC and catch the Listening Post segment. You'll see the most negative and extreme foreign news covered there.

RussSchultz

28-Mar-2003, 17:14

Speaking of that, I've come up with pet terms for the stations:

MSNBC: The Doom and Gloom Network.
FoxNews: Gung Ho Network. Also known as the Warmongers.
CNN: Who?

Nothing bad is emphasised on Fox news, Nothing good is emphasised on on MSNBC, and CNN I don't watch because nothing is emphasised. (but I hear Brittany is dating so and so)

epicstruggle

28-Mar-2003, 17:27

mize, first. I think you are under the impression that this war is a video game where everyone fighting for the coalition comes home alive and well. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. there will be friendly fire incidents. there will be problems, that were not expected. I dont think the pentagon expected that the iraqi military was going to use the children of the population as hostages to make sure the male population fights for them. How do you fight against that. The US has tried to minimize civilian casualties. So far I have heard that about 100 people have died. After a week of ground attacks, air attacks, and what nots, that is an incredible low number.

btw, saddam did not rise to power because of the cia. i have read history books that said he rose to power because of his relatives, and close ties to the prime minester(? cant recall what his title was). I dont doubt that you know more Iraqis than i do, but I am confused as to your lack of knowledge about war. I think the US did the best planning possible,no war plan survives the first bullet shot.

The reason that the people of iraq have not supported the coalition is because of our lack of commitment in 91' we sacrificed the people who stood up against saddam after we promised to help and did not. I imagine that after the people understand that we are not planning on leaving saddam in power, or leave after a month or two, that they will change their mind about the coalition.

I think black and white questions are very pertinant to establishing what your views are. Let me tell you my reasons for this war(in order of priority):
1- Free the people of Iraq from a brutal, oppressive regime
2-Get rid of the WMDs
3-Iradicate any terrorist groups in the country
4-Oil

I dont care if the majority of this government cares about WMDS, or oil. I care for the people of Iraq. look at my previous post prior to the war and youll see that Ive always been for liberation as a top priority.

I dont think bush did a good job with the diplomacy front. I think we should have skipped alltogether the UN and gone to Iraq and gotten the job done right away. Saddam has had months and months to prepare for war. We should have just taken care of business.

Quick history lesson mize. in the 70s-80s we had the commies to deal with. We had to deal with thugs/killers to counter the russians from controlling the large chunks of this world. We had to deal with saddam, osama bin laden, generals in latin america, drug dealers in central america. This was done in the hopes to counter what the russians were doing. Hey guess what we won that war. USSR HAS FALLEN!!!!! now the question is was it worth it. I say yes, a war between the USSR and the US would have ended civilization.

You should pass your analysis of the war to the pentagon. :roll: im sure you would be a valuable asset to them.

later,

DemoCoder

28-Mar-2003, 17:28

What I like about MSNBC is they do frequent recaps, so you don't have to watch for very long, and MSNBC's embeds are better.

David Bloom is the most interesting embed. First, he has more than a shitty video phone, since they rigged an Antenna dish to the APC he is riding on, alot of his video is high quality. Secondly, his reports are no nonsense. Third, he's close to the frontlines, and sees lots of action.

Fox is annoying because they are too gung ho to the point of annoyance. Their opening animation is of a military jet MORPHING INTO A BALD EAGLE FIRING MISSILES.

MrsSkywalker

28-Mar-2003, 20:06

To add something to the friendly fire conversation...

In the US friendly fire accidents, equipment malfunctions, and other military accidents happen frequently enough so that we can see them for what they are: accidents due the the military personel being human. The US is a large country with a massive military...accidents happen and no one is perfect. Here's an example. Before the war, a Black Hawk went down during a training mission and 12 soldiers died. As tragic as that is, it's one of the hazards of the job. So to harp on each individual incident, reporting it ten times an hour, is excessive and unnecessary. We know what happened, we are able to view it in perspective, and there is just no need to rahash it 24/7.

Deflection

28-Mar-2003, 22:34

are you for or against the liberation of the people of iraq?

This war isn't about the liberation of the Iraqi people. Don't be so naive. Originally this war was about WMDs. When that didn't stick it was about 911. When that didn't stick it was about liberating the Iraqi people. Don't kid yourself, this war is about resources and money and those are VALID reasons to go to war, but don't expect me to buy into the latest propaganda.

I *am* for liberating the Iraqi people, however. After all, we helped create the evil dictator that has oppressed them all these years - we ought to at least help get rid of him. Unfortunately we're going about this "liberation" in the wrong way...so much so that the people being liberated are turning against us rather than welcoming us as liberators.

My best friend grew up in Iraq (I'm godfather to his daughter) so I know a bit about how the Iraqi people feel about our approach. I'm sure you, however, know better, right?

....

The sad fact is that Saddam was nowhere near the ruthless maniac he is today before the '91 war and sanctions. What fails to make me proud in all of this are the following:
1. We helped create Saddam while Bush Sr. headed the CIA. Both Rumsfeld and Bob Dole have met the man and patted his back.
2. We encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and then watched as they were mowed down, providing no help.

Yes, Saddam should be taken out and he's largely our responsability so we should certainly help. There are, however, better - much better - ways than this.

Yes, don't be so naive. This war is about all of the things you listed. This is about 9/11. This is about WMD. This is about getting rid of Saddam and liberating Iraq. This is about many Arab gov'ts supporting and allowing their citizens to support terrorists. They funnel money, they shelter training camps, they support and encourage their populace to take their anger out on the US instead of their own gov't. This war is about resources and money used to harm American interests. This is about US's most vital interest: their people's welfare. And the 2nd most vital by extension: their economy.

The anger and contempt was already there before this war. The US had already won an economic and to a lesser extent cultural war with the countries of the world.

You ask Egyptians about the Iraqi people and they only talk about Israel. You ask North Koreans about the Iraqi people and they talk about the death of their schoolgirls and North Korea. You ask Turkey about the Iraqi people and they are concerned about their failing economy, getting into the EU, and US possibly supporting the Kurds. You ask France about the Iraqi people and they are concerned with their own influence in Arab countries and being the center of an EU power. You ask Iran about the Iraqi people and they are concerned with US possibly staying in the region and watching their own dealing.

And there is the heart of the matter. No one really seems to care about the Iraqi people, at least not above more immeadiate interests.

You see this already happening. Saddam using his people as shields for the military. Turkey sending in troops to 'watch' the Kurds. Iran rousing the Shia population against Saddam and the US to hopefully annex a piece of Iraq. Syria sending supplies to Saddam. Al-Jazeera is busy demonizing the US in a propaganda war. France is trying to demand a part in the reconstruction of Iraq. Israel is proclaiming their willingness to fight if attacked by Iraq. Egyptians and Palestinians using the fight to demonize the US. Democrats claiming bad diplomacy so they can be reelected. Jesse Jackson meeting with Kofe Anon. Charlie Rangel saying Bush wants to kill women and children. Republicans claiming Democrats are unpatriotic so they can get reelected. US media claiming the military bungled after only a week of war. Military blaming politicians. Message board posters espousing their hatred for the administration and arm chair generaling. Posters proclaiming their undying support for Bush.

There is always someone else to blame for the worlds ills. The US let Saddam slaughter the rebellion, the UN did, the Zionists did, the Sunni did, the Shia did, the Iraqi people did. The US made Saddam, Iran made Saddam, the Soviet Union made Saddam, the Zionists made Saddam, the Arab gov'ts made Saddam, the Sunni made Saddam, the Shia made Saddam, the Iraqi people made Saddam, God made Saddam, Saddam made Saddam. Blame it on human weakness.

Shall we get rid of Saddam through 12 years of sanctions and inspections that improverish the Iraqi people? Shall we get rid of Saddam through a coalition of UN countries looking out for their own interests or a coalition of 20 countries looking out for their own interests? Shall the coalition have 30 countries signed on but 30 fighting, or 30 signed on but 2 fighting? In the end what makes it any better? Do the Iraqi people really care or just the rest of the world?

I don't know what is right way to help the Iraqi people, but this seems as good as any solution I've heard. With someone like Saddam there are going to be deaths to get rid of him.

DemoCoder

28-Mar-2003, 23:19

The US did no more to "create Saddam" than we did to create Stalin. During WW2, the Allies had a temporary alliance with Stalin to defeat Germany. Did we make Stalin? Should we not have aided the Soviets during WW2 with food?

Around the 1980s, Iraq was a Soviet client state. The US did not even have diplomatic relations with them. Prior to 1979, we "made" the Shah of Iran. Iraq has no US manufactured weapons, it uses Soviet and French equipment.

After 1979, Iran became our enemy. When it appeared that Iraq might lose to Iran, we supplied 3 things to Iraq:

#1 satellite photos and intelligence on Iranian military disposition
#2 agricultural loans
#3 we dropped opposition to French arms sales (that were happening on a smaller scale, but opposed by US state department).

We certainly did not want the fundamentalists in Iran to win, so yes, aid was given. But we are not seeing "blowback" like we saw in Afghanistan, because the aid given was of trivial value. The real blowback is from the years of Soviet weapons sales, weapons that Russia continues to sell to them today.

The claims that Saddam was armed and financed by the CIA are inaccurate. They attribute too much influence and power to the CIA. If the CIA were so good at coups, we wouldn't need military force. Everytime so socialist or communist government falls or turns into a Thugocracy, it is blamed on the CIA, yet, usually the same people describe the CIA as grossly incompetent. CIA information or bribes simply aren't powerful enough to make the difference between a coup happening ornot. There has to be local support for it, preexisting.

The fact is, Saddam and the Baathists got some intel to help with their coup, but they would have likely pulled it off anyway. After Baathists came to power, the Soviets eventually regained control of their client, and today, if anyone is responsible for the "build up" of Saddam, it's the xUSSR.

The leftwing movements like to overexaggerate the abilities of the CIA in order to justify their vilification of the US and drawing of moral equivalency.

However, if we accept that the US did build up Saddam (untrue), then isn't our responsibility to "clean up" the mess too?

Lezmaka

31-Mar-2003, 07:46

we're doubling the force there

Originally, we wanted Turkey to let us use their bases, etc for a northern front. Anyone know how many troops we would have up there if Turkey allowed us to use their bases, and since they didn't, where those troops have been sent?

Nagorak

31-Mar-2003, 08:00

I'm sorry, we generally do not show pictures of babies with half their heads. We don't show gaping wounds with bones protruding. We don't dwell on closeups of people with bullet wounds to their foreheads.

Normally, that which is shown on news channels here is corpses from a distance, blood on the walls, dead covered by blankets, etc. And those are generally only as stills or as short clips as backdrops for the talking head story.

Maybe they should. Regardless of whether this is new or not, if they showed that stuff it might give people a more realistic understanding of what war is. Instead they just show a bunch of bombs exploding over Baghdad and then switch to a news briefing assuring the American public that they are "smart weapons" and none of the are hitting civilians.

War isn't about bloody blankets covering bodies, it's about people being shot and bleeding everywhere, bombs exploding, causing body parts to fly everywhere, carnage, death, etc. If that stuff is offensive for to see then maybe they shouldn't support sending people to war to kill and be killed. To me it's ridiculously hypocritical to shield the American public from what's really happening, and I don't understand how you can view it as anything other than propaganda?

I do understand where you're coming from, and I do agree that much of the U.S. journalists, at least initially, does have that "video-game" like mentality. However, I don't see that as hindering their reporting of the facts.

Quake 3 is a fun game to play, and pretty harmless. But what if people were really dying in the game?

The problem is: this war is being portrayed like Quake 3 and the connection to the people dying just isn't there.

Yeah, it doesn't hinder the reporting of the facts, in the least. :roll:

Originally, we wanted Turkey to let us use their bases, etc for a northern front. Anyone know how many troops we would have up there if Turkey allowed us to use their bases, and since they didn't, where those troops have been sent?

Originally we were hoping the moons and planets would align in such a way, that a ray of light coming from the star Alpha Centauri would be bent in such a way that it would shine on the Iraqi people, and they'd all just throw down their arms and put on an 80s dance party instead.

Nagorak

31-Mar-2003, 08:35

Yes, don't be so naive. This war is about all of the things you listed. This is about 9/11.

I thought Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. If not, why the hell have we wasted all this time hunting for Osama bin Laden? There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda...if anything we should attack Saudi Arabia since that's where most of the terrorists were from.

This is about WMD.

Are you going to be willing to admit you were wrong when no WMD are found? Will you be mad at the President for misleading you, or will you just give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that our security agency really is so incompetent they actually thought there were weapons when there weren't any?

This is about getting rid of Saddam and liberating Iraq.

Don't make me laugh. Bush couldn't come up with any real reason for going to war (disliking Saddam just didn't cut it), so he just kept naming off half-assed reasons on the assumption that eventually most people would find one of them to latch onto. Apparently it worked.

By the way, the Iraqis aren't going to thank us for this. You don't "liberate" people by bombing them back into the stone age. If we wanted to liberate Iraqi, we should have done it by arming the people. But why would they even trust us, anymore? After all, we're the ones who are responsible for their suffering under the embargo for the last 12 years. We're the ones who told them to rise up against Saddam and then just let them get slaughtered.

Face it, the US doesn't give a damn about the people in the region. I doubt you lose much sleep over their plight either, do you?

This is about many Arab gov'ts supporting and allowing their citizens to support terrorists. They funnel money, they shelter training camps, they support and encourage their populace to take their anger out on the US instead of their own gov't.

Has it occurred to you that the people of the region might actually hate the US, and they might even have good reason to do so? Changing governments is not going to change that. The reason we support the dictators there now is because they are friendly to the US. It's actually kind of ironic: if the leaders actually listened to their citizens the US would not be welcome in the region at all.

This war is about resources and money used to harm American interests. This is about US's most vital interest: their people's welfare. And the 2nd most vital by extension: their economy.

Unfortuantely, this is absolutely false. There's a reason we support the arabic dictators: it results in regional stability.

Have you taken the time to think about what will come to pass if the "liberation" of Iraq actually succeeds in setting off a democratic revolution in the region? Well here's what will happen: the region will be engulfed in total chaos. Oil production will essentially stop. Oil prices in the US will sky rocket. The US economy will tank.

Apparently Bush hasn't thought this one through either? I don't claim it's right to support the dictatorships in the mideast, but at least I understand the reasoning behind it. I don't understand the reasoning behind this at all...

The US had already won an economic and to a lesser extent cultural war with the countries of the world.

So did Greece, so did Rome, so did China, so did the mideast back about 1000 years ago. Look where they are now? This isn't like Civ III. Things change, there is no winner. This could just be the first mistep which puts the US on the way out.

You ask Egyptians about the Iraqi people and they only talk about Israel. You ask North Koreans about the Iraqi people and they talk about the death of their schoolgirls and North Korea. You ask Turkey about the Iraqi people and they are concerned about their failing economy, getting into the EU, and US possibly supporting the Kurds. You ask France about the Iraqi people and they are concerned with their own influence in Arab countries and being the center of an EU power. You ask Iran about the Iraqi people and they are concerned with US possibly staying in the region and watching their own dealing.

And there is the heart of the matter. No one really seems to care about the Iraqi people, at least not above more immeadiate interests.

I actually agree with this, but unfortunately this seems to contradict everything you just posted.

Or are you saying the US is somehow exempt from this selfishness? I really hope you're not suggesting that... :roll:

Shall we get rid of Saddam through 12 years of sanctions and inspections that improverish the Iraqi people? Shall we get rid of Saddam through a coalition of UN countries looking out for their own interests or a coalition of 20 countries looking out for their own interests? Shall the coalition have 30 countries signed on but 30 fighting, or 30 signed on but 2 fighting? In the end what makes it any better? Do the Iraqi people really care or just the rest of the world?

I don't know what is right way to help the Iraqi people, but this seems as good as any solution I've heard. With someone like Saddam there are going to be deaths to get rid of him.

You want to know what's right? We should mind our own business and not get involved. You can't give people freedom, they have to win it themselves. If the Iraqis aren't willing or able to do so, then that's too bad. If we were really that concerned we should have armed their people. But maybe the truth is, the people don't have it so bad that they'd care to rise up? Who knows what they're thinking?

Either way, they will not see us as liberators after we demolished their buildings, killed their brothers fighting for their country, and killed their friends and family with errant bombs.

See, that's the thing: the people in Iraq aren't fighting for Saddam, they're fighting for their country. Just like our soldiers are fighting for the US, not fighting for George W. Bush. You can't separate the two.

In the end, Saddam may be gone, but we're going to roll in and find the people mad as hell and ready to send us packing.

Sharkfood

31-Mar-2003, 08:51

There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda...

Actually the Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq were (majority) trained and outfitted in Afghanistan under Osama bin Laden. This is only one of many groups that have been identified with ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

chavvdarrr

31-Mar-2003, 14:46

Quake 3 is a fun game to play, and pretty harmless. But what if people were really dying in the game?

/offtopic
I'll recomend you a book original name sounds like "The labyrynth of reflections", written by a russian writer Sergey Lukianenko, I won't be surprised if in several years his vision can become reality .... and it is a good "rusiian-look at cyber-punk" IMHO :), after all, in US you do have choice and can buy non-english written/translated books ? :)

chavvdarrr

31-Mar-2003, 15:31

This comes from a russian forum. Claims are this comes from Russian army analytics(day per day). I just think that you should see what kind of info is given to Russians ...

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION for the evening?night 30?31 March situation on the American?Iraqi front it began to be peaked.There are all signs/criteria of the fact that troops of coalition began new approach.In Kerbely region after three-hour artillery preparation and several night avia of films the troops of coalition entered into the combat contact with the Iraqi parts, attempting to go around the positions of iraktsev from the east.Thus far allies are limited to probing the forward edge of iraktsev, attempting to reveal density and organization of Iraqi defense after almost five days of bombing and artillery impacts/shocks.There are no communications/reports about the wedging into the Iraqi defense in this sector of the front as yet.In also the time, morning photographs and data of wireless interception revealed the motion of the large column of American troops around Razzaza lake.It is not thus far clear that it is the target/purpose of this march/flight/marsh?the output/yield to the town of eras -Ramadi4 or turning maneuver with the output/yield in mezhduozer'e under the city ale -Falludja.Another column (to 100 units of technology) is noted in the district of the city of Al- Hill by direction to the southeast in 30 km from the strategic route/course Baghdad?Basra.Already toward the evening, if it does not meet with resistance, advance units can saddle this important road.Thus far the data about the losses from this region it did not act.Under the N -Nadjefom were renewed the attacks of American subdivisions on the position of iraktsev.American grouping was here intensified, as a minimum, by three battalions of marines from the composition of reserve and now Americans attempt to master this key city.On the reports of American reconnaissance Iraqi garrison here counts to 3 thousand soldiers and officers and to 1500 volunteers and party activists.In arsenal of iraktsev of approximately 30 tanks T -55, T -62, to four batteries of artillery and more than 300 different means PTO city storm subdivisions 1 of division of marines with a quantity to 6 thousand soldiers and officers with the support of 80 tanks and 60 instruments.Furthermore, air support is achieved to 40 helicopters.Americans did not thus far succeed in making room enemy.Today early in the morning in the suburb N -Nadjafa was destroyed American tank.As the minimum its two crew members perished.In N -Nassirii region active skirmishes continue.For American marines does not thus far succeed in enlarging, occupied of seven days ago, bridgehead/beachhead on the left shore Of efrata.The bridge, which connects bridgehead/beachhead with basic forces of coalition, is practically destroyed and is shot through by iraktsami, which hold defense in coast blocks.Therefore to the aid to the garrison of bridgehead/beachhead it is possible to move only small subdivisions with the light small arms and only at night.Only within the last night on the bridgehead/beachhead marines lost 2 people killed and 5 by injured.Position complicates that the fact that the residential sections, in which are defended iraktsy, approach close to the water, which gives great advantage to defended iraktsam, which control river and approaches to it.Now artillery and aviation of allies systematically destroys these blocks, attempting to push aside iraktsev from coast feature.Data of wireless interception make it possible to draw the conclusion that to the engineer-sapper parts of marines (?morsbi?)is posed the problem of directing pontoon crossing/passage higher than N -Nasirii and to move by the left shore Of efrata to three battalions of marines and landing force members of 82 VDD for organizing the impact/shock into the rear to garrison N -Nasirii.The command of allies would be preparedly go around other defended crossings/passages through Yefrat, if not one fact?in the composition of grouping proved to be only two field-engineer - pontoon companies.However, the arrival of new pontoon subdivisions is expected not earlier than the middle of April.In Basry region continues the opposition of British marines and garrison Of basry.Britons by local impacts/shocks do try, how it is possible more densely to?prizhat'sya?to Basre, and to stiffen blockade, but this little thus far by them succeeds.Thus, during the night - the morning Englishmen do attempt to take city?the satellite Of basry al -Xasyb, arranged/located in 7 kilometers to the southeast from Basry and, after leaving to ale- Arabian river, to cut defense from the Iraqi parts in this region, after cutting off from Basry those defending in Fao peninsula detachments.
To the battalion of Englishmen with the support of technology at 8 A.M. they entered into the city from the south, but only the hour they were after stopped by fire/light and they inquired the aid of artillery and aviation.Now combat for the city continue.In them already it perished, at least, 2 British marines, 3 soldiers obtained injury.Burned down one BTR.On the reports of British commanders in combat it is killed the minimum of 50 iraktsev, 10 soldiers it is undertaken into the captivity.In the region of the river port of ez-Zubair, which another week was ago declared undertaken under the complete control by troops of coalition, was shot in the ambush English military launch with crew and group of marines aboard.As the minimum of 4 British soldiers it was killed, 9 people are injured.The sound-recording yesterday numbers of the losses of coalition appear, as a minimum?zapazdyvayushchimi?.57 killed, acknowledged by the command of coalition are the number of losses to the morning on 26 March.On this in the confidential conversation one of the chief/leading physicians, the hospital of that developed in el-kuveyt reported to the correspondent OF VVS.to?U us there is order to recognize the death only of those soldiers, who were delivered into the hospital, they were identified, brought into appropriate order and they were prepared to the sending to the native land.The process of identification, if it is necessary - identification and subsequent required standard embalming occupies a certain time.Sometimes days.But only commander does know, how much we did lose killed today, and you about this do learn the day through three??- this conversation was written down by correspondent to the Dictaphone film, and it was?peregnana?in the editorial staff through the channel of telephone honeycomb communications.According to the data of wireless interception and intra-net information of American hospitals the number of losses of coalition comprises to today's morning not less than 100 people of the soldiers OF THE USA by those killed and not less than 35 killed Britons.Furthermore, that disappeared to bezvesti is acknowledged 22 Americans even 11 Englishmen, the fate still approximately of 400 soldiers now is refined.The number of injured exceeded 480 people.The working with the staff coalitions American experts studied the hit and destroyed tanks MYA2 and the struck armored carriers.They arrived at the conclusion/derivation that iraktsev undoubtedly have contemporary anti-tank means, capable of striking the tanks of all available in coalition in arsenal modifications, but thus far the application of these means it bears?ves'ma the limited nature?.Only three tanks were struck by the controlled weapon, which from the first entry/incidence destroyed target/purpose.Rest were disabled by conventional means.The most common forms of damages/defeats are:the projectiles of anti-tank instruments (of about 40%), the impacts/shocks of manual grenade dischargers (25%), underminings on mines (25%).In this case the high effectiveness of antitank artillery was noted.of high-speed projectiles does not always destroy tank and its crew, but in 90% of cases is rendered inoperable it, forcing crew to leave tank on the field of battle??- it is said in the report.Report itself was disseminated for studying the commanders of the advancing/attacking parts and transmitted in OKNSH OF THE USA.The Russian servicemen of analytical geometry warn the command of Iraqi army against superfluous optimism.It goes without saying, which for the army OF THE USA did not succeed by?blits-krigom?to master Iraq and to destroy its army, it is obvious, that the Americans stuck in Iraq and military campaign clearly slips, but the danger of the underestimation of enemy now appeared before the Iraqi management/manual.As yet there are no reasons whatever to doubt the persistence of Americans, and their resolution to attain the goal presented?the complete military occupation of Iraq.In reality, in spite of obvious errors and errors of the highest military command of coalition, troops, which were wedged in into Iraq, preserve high combat efficiency and readiness to battle.The losses, carried in twelve days of combat, although are extremely unhealthy for the pride and impressive for the public opinion, completely not essential from a military point view.Initiative also tightly is located in the hands of coalition.Under these conditions of statement about the fast victory over the enemy they can lead into error friendly forces and population of Iraq and, as a result, lead to demoralization and weakening of the potential of resistance?
According to the estimations/evaluations of Russian military analysts?kriticheskim?for THE USA with the period of war is the campaign the duration more than 90 days, when in this time by Americans will be lost more than 1000 people killed.Under these conditions the serious political crisis is not avoided both in themselves OF THE USA and in the international association

note: 2 days ago the most interesting part of it was that (according to this source) "US army's worst enemy is desert and sand, with almost twice the number of damaged in combat vehicles being almost "dead" and hard to use because of failures"

RussSchultz

31-Mar-2003, 15:39

It'd be nice if they used a little more punctuation and paragraphs. That dense text is too hard to read.

Plus, I don't believe much of anything that comes out of Russia in terms of reports on US actions. I can't remember which source it was, but there were reports of thousands of US dead in Afghanistan being shipped out of Uzbekistan (which, of course, never was true).

JF_Aidan_Pryde

31-Mar-2003, 16:20

I have to say I agree with most of what Nagorak said.

Just before the war started, I was slightly pro war and hoped for a quick and clean regime change; It seemed to hold some light for a broader democratization of the middle east. But now with people going in by the thousands to suicide bomb and fight till the death, I dont' see how any Iraqi will buy the 'liberator' story. Sure we've seen a handful of positive images on welcoming the US army but it's the radicalists that are the real trouble. The British had a hard time colonizing Iraq and I fear this time it will be even worse.

On a bigger scale the amount of anti-American sentiment across the globe is disturbing. Southern Asia, East Asia, Europe, Middle East - everywhere people by the millions protesting. I know from experience a lot of them are ill-informed but it's also true that not all of them are. There are plenty of knowledgable and intelligent people and officials highly against recent action. I personally think taking no action and continuing the policy of containment is a horrible choice, but looking at it now this military conflict is unfolding to something possibly even worse.

I'm probably the few who think that there is no suitable solution, rather than chosing the one sided view of "peace!" or "war!". (Kind of like the a function with no real solutions). If no action is taken, in a few years Iraq aquires WMD and capable deliverance systems. Horror.

On the other hand, following the current course of invasion, eventually the US is going to win and establish some government. A lot of Iraqis are going to oppose it. American companies lined up to exploit the resource of post war Iraq is going to find thems in a security nightmare. The whole middle east region is going to be filled with a new generation of 'militant islam', the very people this war is trying to eventually eradicate. This hate isn't going to go away no matter how much they love their democracy (assuming that democracy even gets established!). And the whole arguement of exchanging short term security for long term will be bogus as people in this region are NOT going to forgive or forget what is done to them.

Look at South Korea. For all their economic achievements, democracy, standard of living, a huge portion of the people (no, not just the trade union members) still hate America's guts. Why? History is not lightly forgiven. It's easy for you to justify a war as saying it's to 'help' a certain nation but the actual intepretation of what you were doing solely rests in the people of that nation. Iraqis are not going to let go of what the U.S. did to them because their interpretation is not going to be of liberation but occupation.