Sharkfood said:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.aid/index.html
It's also mentioned, and a link to that story is provided, in most of the other stories on CNN.com today.
What they don't show us here in the US
- Thread starter Mize
- Start date
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.aid/index.html
It's also mentioned, and a link to that story is provided, in most of the other stories on CNN.com today.
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
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
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,
later,
Silent_One
Newcomer
epicstruggle wrote:
Correct. That was reported lats night on CNN's TV coverage.
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,
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,
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.
Mize said:
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.
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,
later,
RussSchultz said:
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
epicstruggle said:
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
Mize said:
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.
RussSchultz said:
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
Mize said:
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.
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
Newcomer
Mize said:
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.
epicstruggle said:
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?
Now there's a good argument.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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)
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)
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. im sure you would be a valuable asset to them.
later,
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.
im sure you would be a valuable asset to them.later,
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.
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.
Similar threads
