NationStates Jolt Archive

The Iraqi military will now become increasingly controlled by Iraqis and not US officers. The government already controls the navy, the air force, and an army division. Two divisions will be put under Iraqi control every month.

"The Iraqi Army today is rebuilt again away from sectarian violence," al-Maliki said at the ceremony.

This is extremely strong motivation to oppose a cut-and-run "strategy." Iraqis are just beginning to have a functional method of self-governance, including controlling their military well. If the US were to leave before the job were completed, the Iraqi military would not be able to stop the sectarian violence. However, at this rate, there is an end in sight -- the Iraqi military is becoming stronger and more adept, day by day, until eventually, it will be able to accomplish its goal of bringing law and order to a country torn by violence.

Handing over control of the country's security to Iraqi forces is vital to any eventual drawdown of U.S. forces. After disbanding the remaining Iraqi army following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, coalition forces have been training the new Iraqi military.

The US must see through the mission until the end. Suicide bombings and attacks come as a stark reminder, daily, of what might happen if US troops withdraw.

A suicide car bomb targeting a police patrol outside a gas station near the Elouya Hospital in central Baghdad killed 10 people, including four policemen, and wounded 21, police said. Another suicide car bombing in Taiyran Square in the center of the city killed three policemen and wounded 15, the prime minister's office said. Police initially reported two civilians and two policemen were killed. Two suicide car bombs exploded near al-Nidaa Mosque in northern Baghdad, the prime minister's office said. Nobody was hurt in the first, but the second killed three civilians and wounded 12. Another suicide car bomb in Taiyran Square in the center of the city killed two civilians and two police special forces members, and wounded 13 people, police said. In western Baghdad, a roadside bombing in Qahtan Square near Yarmouk hospital wounded four people, including a policeman, Mahmoud said. Elsewhere, in the upscale district of Mansour, a roadside bomb explosion killed a man and injured his daughter and another person, police said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212677,00.html

Begoner21;11651692']
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212677,00.html

most of the people on NS wont take this as a credible source.....but I agree with you.

Hmm, foxnews.com

not one of my trusted sources.

No Fox fan here either, but I agree - imminent/immediate withdrawl of American and other foreign troops from Iraq wouldn't help.

most of the people on NS wont take this as a credible source.....but I agree with you.

Facts are facts, no matter where you get them. I don't understand why some people have a seizure at the mention of FOX -- I'll gladly accept any NY Times article as long as the point to be debated has a factual basis. In this case, however, I couldn't find the article on many more "credible" left-leaning sites.

Hmm, foxnews.com

not one of my trusted sources.

Yeah, I agree that america shouldn't pull out of Iraq, but Fox news is a GOP propaganda engine.

Begoner21;11651729']Facts are facts, no matter where you get them. I don't understand why some people have a seizure at the mention of FOX -- I'll gladly accept any NY Times article as long as the point to be debated has a factual basis. In this case, however, I couldn't find the article on many more "credible" left-leaning sites.

if its factual, why not get it from the pentagon or the whitehouse???

Begoner21;11651729']Facts are facts, no matter where you get them. I don't understand why some people have a seizure at the mention of FOX *Snip*.

Good joke, do another one.

It says AP contributed, but I cant find it anywhere else. Weird.

Not to mention that's the only Iraq news Fox has, while Yahoo has the multiplication of deaths.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060907172615

compare to the same AP report. amazing.

What? Iraq is taking control of armed forces? Didn't we invade them? The bastards! A couple of tanks sitting outside their governmental offices should take care of that isolence.

[/ignorance of world affairs.

Here's from Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Meh we should just hide in Kuwait for awhile, wait for everyone to kill each other in the name of 'religion' then help the survivors. Either way it'll be the same result.

What? Iraq is taking control of armed forces? Didn't we invade them? The bastards! A couple of tanks sitting outside their governmental offices should take care of that isolence.

[/ignorance of world affairs.
:D

I'm distinctly dubious about the ability of the iraqi army to fight the insurgency etc. We'll see whether the fighting dies down when the Americans leave. I doubt it.

It's not as significant as it sounds. It's a start in the right direction.

They took over command for their tiny navy and air force. They also command one out of 10 divisions.

if its factual, why not get it from the pentagon or the whitehouse???

The White House site does not have much recent news in regard to Iraq. It comes as no surprise that they do not have this particular article. The nearest thing I could find was the President's plan from November, 2005, which shows that they're not very up-to-date on the latest news:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130.html

However, if you consider a source from the Pentagon more reliable (I guess I do, too), here you go:

http://www.pentagon.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?id=739

Begoner21;11651729']Facts are facts, no matter where you get them. I don't understand why some people have a seizure at the mention of FOX -- I'll gladly accept any NY Times article as long as the point to be debated has a factual basis. In this case, however, I couldn't find the article on many more "credible" left-leaning sites.

It's because they don't like the facts when they aren't liberally coated with the CNN bias. It's also because they can't tell the difference between news and commentary. O'Reilly and Hannity are not news shows. Only half of Special Report is news. But there are plenty of confused liberals out there. They have still never been able to point out a single case of bias in a Fox _news_ show.

Begoner21;11651729']Facts are facts, no matter where you get them. I don't understand why some people have a seizure at the mention of FOX -- I'll gladly accept any NY Times article as long as the point to be debated has a factual basis. In this case, however, I couldn't find the article on many more "credible" left-leaning sites.

"Facts" are easily manipulated, selectively reported, or even made up.

"Facts" are easily manipulated, selectively reported, or even made up.

The Pentagon site has corroborated that story, and FOX is quite reliable and trustworthy -- more so than many other news sites (like Reuters, for example).

It's because they don't like the facts when they aren't liberally coated with the CNN bias. It's also because they can't tell the difference between news and commentary. O'Reilly and Hannity are not news shows. Only half of Special Report is news. But there are plenty of confused liberals out there. They have still never been able to point out a single case of bias in a Fox _news_ show.

Nice choice of words.

But I guess a channel with news in the name shouldn't be held to its own name.


(CNN falls under it too)

"Facts" are easily manipulated, selectively reported, or even made up.

It's real easy for you to google up the press conference transcript. But reading that might be dangerous for you. It might cause you to change your mind.

Begoner21;11651845']... and FOX is quite reliable and trustworthy -- more so than many other news sites (like Reuters, for example).Because Reuters is..?


Unreliable, why..?

It's real easy for you to google up the press conference transcript. But reading that might be dangerous for you. It might cause you to change your mind.

It's also easy to google the merged video of Rumsfeld lying.

But that is a great ending :p .

Change your mind? What are you, some kind of wymyn? :D

Because Reuters is..? Unreliable, why..?

Because some of its photographs were doctored for a more anti-Israeli effect (ie, liberal). The damage inflicted by Israeli planes was exaggerated. A Reuters photographer even had somebody "play dead" to make it seem that Israel killed more civilians than it actually did.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1154525816599

Begoner21;11651969']Because some of its photographs were doctored for a more anti-Israeli effect (ie, liberal). The damage inflicted by Israeli planes was exaggerated. A Reuters photographer even had somebody "play dead" to make it seem that Israel killed more civilians than it actually did.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1154525816599
We've been through this many times. The photographer doctored the photos which were taken down and replaced; and the photographer suspended.

We've been through this many times. The photographer doctored the photos which were taken down and replaced; and the photographer suspended.

Yes, the photographer was the one who physically doctored the photos. However, it was the liberal supervisors who intentionally overlooked such an obviously doctored photo to fit their political agenda. Reuters was itself complicit in the doctoring by allowing the photo to be posted on its site without adequate and objective review.

Begoner21;11652101']Yes, the photographer was the one who physically doctored the photos. However, it was the liberal supervisors who intentionally overlooked such an obviously doctored photo to fit their political agenda. Reuters was itself complicit in the doctoring by allowing the photo to be posted on its site without adequate and objective review.

Wait, is that parody?

Reuters made a mistake. Which they corrected. I'd expect the same fo Fox News, CNN, the Guardian anyone. It's not evidence of a liberal agenda.

Begoner21;11652101']Yes, the photographer was the one who physically doctored the photos. However, it was the liberal supervisors who intentionally overlooked such an obviously doctored photo to fit their political agenda. Reuters was itself complicit in the doctoring by allowing the photo to be posted on its site without adequate and objective review.

Probably a tad over the top on the "liberal conspiracy" level there, B21. There's no evidence Reuters did anything but miss a rather good bit of photoshopping.

Thanks for the answer all the same... however asinine it was...

Reuters made a mistake. Which they corrected. I'd expect the same fo Fox News, CNN, the Guardian anyone. It's not evidence of a liberal agenda.

Well, I'm not sure of that, but either way, it's far afield of the original point. There are two possibilities here. The first is that the Reuters staff are too incompetent to realize that one of their images is obviously doctored before it is picked up on by amateur bloggers. This would be a sorry state of affairs indeed. The second is that the Reuters staff did realize that the image was doctored, but did not bother to correct it, presumably due to a liberal agenda. The original point was that Reuters is not a reliable source like FOX. And Reuters is obviously not a reliable source becuase if either of the two above possibilities is correct, it casts doubts on the factuality of Reuters reports.

Reuters is similar to other wire service type outlets like the AP in that it generates such a huge volume of stories it's bound to have some with a liberal slant, some with a conservative slant, and plenty that are unbiased.

Begoner21;11652190']Well, I'm not sure of that, but either way, it's far afield of the original point. There are two possibilities here. The first is that the Reuters staff are too incompetent to realize that one of their images is obviously doctored before it is picked up on by amateur bloggers. This would be a sorry state of affairs indeed. The second is that the Reuters staff did realize that the image was doctored, but did not bother to correct it, presumably due to a liberal agenda. The original point was that Reuters is not a reliable source like FOX. And Reuters is obviously not a reliable source becuase if either of the two above possibilities is correct, it casts doubts on the factuality of Reuters reports.

Or get this, they jsut missed it, and took it down when the blogs pointed it out. Everyone makes mistakes.

Or get this, they jsut missed it, and took it down when the blogs pointed it out. Everyone makes mistakes.


Agreed, but unfortunately, the major news organizations have been making more and more "mistakes". It's getting to the point of , if not bias, then incompetance. And they're the ones that were doing the most whining over the influence of bloggers and demanding restrictions.

Or get this, they jsut missed it, and took it down when the blogs pointed it out. Everyone makes mistakes.

That's what the first possibility was -- their incompetence led them to make a mistake. Photos are supposed to be reviewed before being posted. I can't trust them if they make such obvious "mistakes," if indeed they even are mistakes and not intentional.

Agreed, but unfortunately, the major news organizations have been making more and more "mistakes". It's getting to the point of , if not bias, then incompetance. And they're the ones that were doing the most whining over the influence of bloggers and demanding restrictions.
I suspect that's a part of the advent of 'rolling news'. Not that it's a good thing, of course, but something that just happens. I never heard anything about restricting bloggers...

EDIT: Yay, Forum Boredum

Begoner21;11652271']That's what the first possibility was -- their incompetence led them to make a mistake. Photos are supposed to be reviewed before being posted. I can't trust them if they make such obvious "mistakes," if indeed they even are mistakes and not intentional.

To be fair, the photos weren't THAT obvious. Though they should have caught the second one, since they should have been watching for that photog's work.

Good. I am glad that Iraq is taking control of their armed forces. Now let us give them all the support that they need so that our forces can come home.

Oh wow. They have control of one under supplied army division, a non-existent air force, and a navy that including inflatable boats(seriously). They are really turning the corner those Iraqis:rolleyes:

Oh wow. They have control of one under supplied army division, a non-existent air force, and a navy that including inflatable boats(seriously). They are really turning the corner those Iraqis:rolleyes:

They currently only have control over one army division. However, if all goes according to plan (yeah, I know), the Iraqi army will be given control of two new divisions each month. The Iraqi air force does, in fact, exist, and has a total of 34 planes -- again, not too many, but not zero as you would suggest. The navy has 5 Predator-class boats, 5 Chinese-built gunboats (27 metres), 24 fast aluminum boats, and 6 Al-Uboor-class boats. All branches of the Iraqi military are being reconstructed, however, and are becoming more self-dependent by the minute. Many of the ships in Iraq's navy, for example, were built by Iraqi businesses after the invasion:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/feb2005/a021705la1.html