NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, if so then things must be going absolutely fantastically in Iraq!!!!!


How do I know this? The Whitehouse has long maintained a nice site for their "Good News" stories about all of the successes in Iraq. I liked to read it once in a while just to ensure that I was getting the official oval office view along with my other sources.

It's right here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/


Funny thing though... they don't seem to have updated it lately...... ah well - I guess nothing important has happened in Iraq.... since October.

Funny thing though... they don't seem to have updated it lately...... ah well - I guess nothing important has happened in Iraq.... since October.

Ha! :)

It's a historical truism that news from a war zone is often spotty, distorted (by government and reporter alike), and generally unreliable.

Even if you get your news from multiple sources, it's probably very difficult to get an accurate picture of what's going on in Iraq. You can't claim to know the truth about what's going on there any more than the Bush administration can.

I distinctly remember talking to both CBS and CNN reporters in Hafar al-Batin during the original Gulf War. They were so shockingly ignorant of even the most simple strategy that they had no idea what was happenning when the 7th Corps did the end run around Kuwait.

Even though they were sitting right there when the Big Red One did their feint towards Kuwait, then retreated to their tank transporters for the 150 k trek up the road to make the sweep through the Neutral Zone.

I find it difficult to believe a government report. I find it equally difficult to believe a reporter from virtually any news service, especially if they have zero military experience. They will have NO idea what's going on, even if they see it with their own eyes. They won't be able to interpret anything they see - accurately - because they don't know what they're looking at.

Even the simplest private knew from the one day feint what was going to happen next.

As a result of that ignorance, I remember talking to the CBS crew that drove into Iraq the next day - in the wrong place - and were captured only a few hours after getting some advice from me. They chose not to believe me - because they believed the military will always lie to them. So they were captured, and IIRC, the reporter himself was tortured by Iraqi troops.

It's been years since I've been in the service - but I hear from old friends that the reporters, by and large, are just as stupid as they ever were.

Their mothers must have taught them that if they can't say anything nice, it's better to say nothing at all.

Heh.

i used that site for my "persuasive writing" that turned out the be a 12 page thesis against america. its all the bush kisses baby's head and stuff nonsense on there not any of the bush can't read.

Czech it out, Iraq fact of the day, all it is is american

" oh look at how great we made iraq

IRAQ FACT OF THE DAY ARCHIVES

6/29/2004 > Iraqis are Confident in Their New Leaders
6/28/2004 > Iraq is a Sovereign Country
6/25/2004 > Iraqi Students Encourage Free Thought
6/24/2004 > Iraqi Women Take on Leadership Roles
6/23/2004 > Sovereignty Thriving in Local Governments
6/22/2004 > Iraq's Private Bankers Make International Contacts
6/21/2004 > Group Helps Iraqi Widows Improve Lives
6/17/2004 > Government Employees Report to Iraq Ministers
6/16/2004 > Baghdad Mayor Names New Inspector General
6/15/2004 > Iraqi Veterans Job Training Initiative Announced
6/14/2004 > Iraqi Natural History Museum Receives Book Donation
6/10/2004 > Iraqis Have Full Control of Their Oil
6/9/2004 > Iraqis Show Confidence in Country's Future
6/8/2004 > Iraqis Take First Step toward Free Elections
6/7/2004 > New Oil Tankers Aid Fuel Delivery to Iraqis
6/4/2004 > Date Production Restoration Under Way in Iraq


these arent facts

comical ali wasnt much better though

are you a terrorist? or just a disgruntled commie who hates freedom?



and... lol @ Baghdad Bob. That guy was first-rate.

We're at their airport and moving into Baghdad and he's all, "They are nowhere near Baghdad..." or whatever. Absolutely classic.

OMG i'm honoured!! I'm quoted in a sig!! :D

yes, best thing all day, and no im not a terrorist, and i do like freedom, its just the propaganda part of it they posted as "facts"

yes, best thing all day, and no im not a terrorist, and i do like freedom, its just the propaganda part of it they posted as "facts"

are you there in Iraq?

were you there to see all the people Saddam tortured and/or murdered in cold blood?

would you want to live under Saddam (not literally.. hehe)?

think about that before you damn our efforts to free them from tyranny.

we'll be out of there as soon as they can defend themselves from the worst of the Sunnis, who don't want to lose their power over the majority Shi'a. (train an army and the police.. stuff like that)

are you there in Iraq?

were you there to see all the people Saddam tortured and/or murdered in cold blood?

would you want to live under Saddam (not literally.. hehe)?

think about that before you damn our efforts to free them from tyranny.

we'll be out of there as soon as they can defend themselves from the worst of the Sunnis, who don't want to lose their power over the majority Shi'a. (train an army and the police.. stuff like that)

1) He isnt in Iraq, and you arent in Iraq. Even most of the westerners in Iraq arent really in it, they just sit in the green zone.
2)Were you there when ripped this kids arms off? http://society.guardian.co.uk/disasterresponse/story/0,1321,1099820,00.html

3) I very much believe that no Iraqi wanted to live under saddam, but what are the invaders to them? Just new dictators.

The USA should have thought too, before trying to be a cowboy and throwing a country into violence, anarchy, and most likely a civil war.

Yep, because the USA is dying to get out of Iraq.. as soon as you get the elections, assuming that any iraqui goes out to vote (the risk of being bombed is quite high), Interim President Iyad Allawi will be declared the winner by default, since there is no other alternative.

American policy will be to take the path of least resistence and let Allawi rule and make it his responsibility both to organize another election and to impose basic civil security, which may be utterly beyond his government's abilities. US forces will withdraw from the Iraqi cities (and peacekeeping duties) to bases out in the desert Meanwhile. Iraqi Shi'ites (Allawi) and the Sunnis (including old Baathists) will have a civil war. God knows what will happen to Iraq's oil infrastructure. US forces can't guard it all.

One can hardly claim to have either the gift of clairvoyance (to be able to see the truth of what is actually happenning on the ground in Iraq), or the gift of prophecy (to be able to truly know how this is all going to come out).

Anyone who claims they know what's happenning there, and how it's going to come out is as big a fool as they claim Bush and Rumsfeld are.

One can hardly claim to have either the gift of clairvoyance (to be able to see the truth of what is actually happenning on the ground in Iraq), or the gift of prophecy (to be able to truly know how this is all going to come out).

Anyone who claims they know what's happenning there, and how it's going to come out is as big a fool as they claim Bush and Rumsfeld are.


So are you suggesting then that we should not bother to discuss it at all? Ignore anything and everything available to us on this subject by being dismissive about every single source ot there? Refrain from openly debating merits of policy decisions while they are happening in favour of assuming that Bush and Rumsfled (based on their track record) know best and that the end result will be the best possible option?

Your comments here seem to indicate a preference that people refrain from forming opinions and debating issues based in imperfect knowledge. I would say that knowing that one has imperfect knowledge they should debate harder as if they cannot successfully defend their position they might realize gaps in their understanding of an issue and actually learn something that they otherwise wouldn't have.


I mean, really: Who is absolutely sure of exactly how anything will turn out?

Shouldn't stop you from trying to learn more about it though.

are you there in Iraq?

were you there to see all the people Saddam tortured and/or murdered in cold blood?

would you want to live under Saddam (not literally.. hehe)?

think about that before you damn our efforts to free them from tyranny.

we'll be out of there as soon as they can defend themselves from the worst of the Sunnis, who don't want to lose their power over the majority Shi'a. (train an army and the police.. stuff like that)
Are any of these questions in any way relevant? His claim is not whether or not these things are true, but if they are facts

6/29/2004 > Iraqis are Confident in Their New Leaders
...
6/9/2004 > Iraqis Show Confidence in Country's Future

These aren't facts, they are observations based on what the reporter believes are the opinions or the Iraqi people. Opinions, stated in this way, are not facts, they are opinions, and the lack of balance in the cited list suggests a distinct spin on whats being reported, and some (including me) would say that it is therefore propaganda.

So are you suggesting then that we should not bother to discuss it at all? Ignore anything and everything available to us on this subject by being dismissive about every single source ot there? Refrain from openly debating merits of policy decisions while they are happening in favour of assuming that Bush and Rumsfled (based on their track record) know best and that the end result will be the best possible option?

Your comments here seem to indicate a preference that people refrain from forming opinions and debating issues based in imperfect knowledge. I would say that knowing that one has imperfect knowledge they should debate harder as if they cannot successfully defend their position they might realize gaps in their understanding of an issue and actually learn something that they otherwise wouldn't have.

I mean, really: Who is absolutely sure of exactly how anything will turn out?

Shouldn't stop you from trying to learn more about it though.

I'm not saying you shouldn't discuss it, or even find out more about it. But it sounds like too many people are quite sure - in fact absolutely sure - that they know the absolute truth on the ground in Iraq - when it is probably quite full of error and mistruth. They sound extremely wrong.

What we should do is send someone there. Or contact people who we can prove are actually there. Trying to get your news through the filter of journalism or through the sewer of government is laughable. I've seen both be so far off from the truth that I can't rely on either one to really let me know what's happenning.

I really lost all respect for government statements about the state of things - as well as all respect for journalists as a whole - during the first gulf war.

The level of how big the lies are and how much the news is distorted is beyond anything that most people can imagine.