It would seem to me that since body bags continue to be filled, there's still plenty to discuss.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.htmlAll six soldiers in a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter were killed today when their aircraft went down near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, a U.S. military source said. The cause of the crash is under investigation.
Whether the cause is mechanical failure or enemy action, it's 6 more combat deaths.
"Dad, you killed the zombie Flanders!" "He was a zombie?"
Withdrawal isn't an option right now. But as this drags on it will become more and more unpopular. I want to see the UN dragged into this eventually. The more nations involved the more credibility the occupation receives. Eventually, this occupation will end. I just don't believe the Iraqi government that emerges from this will be one the administration is hoping for.WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark (news - web sites) said on Thursday the United States should resist pressure for an early exit in Iraq (news - web sites), and laid out steps to build international involvement there and mend relations with Europe.
Clark, in the fourth and last in a series of speeches designed to sketch out his positions on domestic and foreign policy, said the United States needed to develop a strategy for success in Iraq that gave Iraqis a bigger stake in their future and developed greater international participation.
"Early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither," Clark said a speech on Iraq and foreign policy given at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, South Carolina, site of a crucial primary on Feb. 3.
"First we must end the American monopoly on the occupation and reconstruction. Then we must develop the right force mix to fight and win guerrilla war," he said. "Finally, we must give Iraqis a rising stake in our success."
Clark, a retired general and former NATO (news - web sites) commander, made several references to U.S. efforts in the Balkans in which he was a leading figure as a guide to step the United States should take in Iraq.
He called for development of an Iraqi Reconstruction Council to internationalize the occupation, and for an Iraqi interim government and constitution written by Iraqi representatives.
GRADUAL AUTHORITY OVER OIL
He said the interim government should be given gradual authority over oil revenues and other domestic issues to give civilians a stake in stemming the violence.
He also recommended the United States appoint an allied high representative to guide Iraq's reconstruction while shifting the military operation to NATO forces under U.S. command.
Despite continued chaos in Iraq and attacks on U.S. troops, most of Clark's eight Democratic rivals for the right to challenge President Bush (news - web sites) in 2004 have agreed the United States must stay in Iraq until order is restored and a representative government takes control.
"Failure in Iraq will not only be a tragedy for Iraq, it will be a disaster for America and the world," Clark said. "It will give the terrorists of al Qaeda a new base of operations."
Clark, a political rookie who entered the presidential race in September, said a new Atlantic Charter would help define the common threats faced with European allies and demand more action from allies to meet them, but offer a promise to act together as a first choice, not last.
"We have seen that it is foolish to act alone as a first resort," said Clark, who has criticized Bush's failure to build international support for the Iraq war and what he said was his rush to invade Iraq despite the lack of an imminent threat.
Clark also endorsed "an agile, intelligence-driven counter-insurgency" military effort in Iraq, saying better border protection was needed to stem the flow of foreign fighters into the country.
Clark demanded an effort to secure weapons dumps throughout the country, where he said an estimated 500,000 tons of ammunition remains unguarded.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
Watch your backs boys and girls.Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told reporters that the number of attacks in Iraq has risen from five to six daily in May to an average of 30 attacks per day within the last month.
I read on Sunday that the Pentagon is banning reporters from showing bodybags and pictures of dead soldiers being unloaded from planes in flag covered caskets...
Shameful, is the only word to describe how this administration is trying to give a makeover to a war they have no idea how to end or even control
You would prefer sensationalist reporting which overloads the public with sensitive and graphic images?
Well... whatever floats your boat.
No, but I do mind the government trying to censor the media while spending millions on a publicity campaign with gabinet members and the president himself promoting the war.
The government has censored photos like that for years.
But why censor now?
They had no problem or restrictions until negatives news began pouring in and attacks escalated.
Why not? Why must journalists include morbid images?!Originally posted by JediBoricua
But why censor now?
They had no problem or restrictions until negatives news began pouring in and attacks escalated.
I think what he's getting at is why do they mainly show the images of victory and happy Iraqis and exclude the hardships and tragedies?
*Not getting involved, just calling it the way I see it. I may be off*
That's exactly what he means as I see it.Originally posted by JMK
I think what he's getting at is why do they mainly show the images of victory and happy Iraqis and exclude the hardships and tragedies?
*Not getting involved, just calling it the way I see it. I may be off*
On another note, I see the Supreme Court has taken the case of the detainees at Guantanamo bay.
All you have to do is look at Vietnam for the reasons why the government is censoring journalists. It wasn't sensationalism when Americans saw images of body bags and bloody soldiers during Vietnam. It was an unblemished look at war.
During the Gulf War the media was effectively controlled. You saw great tapes of smart bombs, but very little in the way of what those bombs did to bodies. There were times when Dan Rather and company were even used as disinformation to throw off the occupying Iraqis. This isn't a question of a Republican or Democratic administration dealing with the media during a war IMO. It's a government that will go to great lengths to avoid some of the mistakes of Vietnam. I think that only having images of sleek aircraft taking off of carriers does a disservice to the images getting burned into the minds of the soldiers on the ground. War isn't pretty and the dirty side of it should be shown back home every once in awhile. Numbers aren't enough sometimes. As bad as what it'll look like, you still won't have to live and smell it. Those sometimes grusome images will be a minimal discomfort when viewed from a living room instead of a ditch in the desert.
Well, if that's what he's getting at...Originally posted by JMK
I think what he's getting at is why do they mainly show the images of victory and happy Iraqis and exclude the hardships and tragedies?
WHAT?!?! Dude, we are only shown images of hardships and tragedies. The media CEOs don't seem to think that a shipment of school desks from the U.S. to Nasiriyah is newsworthy, nor an image of a man in Baghdad spray painting a graffiti warning on the side of a building that foreign suicide bombers will face brutal revenge if cought, nor a story about the bravery of the Iraqi Police. What do they show us instead? Exploded IEDs and reports of suicide bombings and mortar attacks. Nothing else. No balance. Even Fox News Live. Happiness and liberation don't boost ratings.
I'll try to avoid mentioning the terms "massive left-wing conspiracy" or "media involvement", but it's dang hard when just about every domestic TV-based media outlet is so skewed towards reporting on only the negative aspects of the war. Consequently, I've started disintermediating the commercial salesmen and going straight to the source (Iraqis) when I want to read about Iraq. Gotta love them Iraqi bloggers.
What are the positive aspects of the war in its current phase, in your opinion?Originally posted by Darth Viscera
I'll try to avoid mentioning the terms "massive left-wing conspiracy" or "media involvement", but it's dang hard when just about every domestic TV-based media outlet is so skewed towards reporting on only the negative aspects of the war.
We're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Every day, Iraqis come up in droves and inform CPA authorities of Fedayeen holdouts or Syrian terrorist cells. Iraqis are calling for revenge against the Syrian bastards who keep blowing up themselves and their kids, and they voluntarily send gunmen to protect the schools that we've rebuilt from any intruders.
Iraqi salaries are increasing steadily due to the fact that Saddam was a stingy SOB and was only interested in his own wealth, and every day the rate at which the Iraqis pump oil increases. Soon they'll be pumping 3 million barrels a day, and the domestic needs of Iraq call for only 850,000 barrels a day, so that'll be 2.15 million barrels exported a day. This means the GDP per capita is going up. I'd venture to say that within 10 years the GDP per capita will be at $15,000, which matches Kuwait currently.
Iraqi police are brave, and they return to work every day, even if they saw their buddy get shot in the face by a Yemeni mujahadeen last week. The numbers of the IP are swelling far, far beyond any angry terrorist's ability to kill them. No 30 attacks a day is going to shut down the collective aspirations of 25 million people to achieve peace and prosperity.
The coalition is starting to transfer authority back to the Iraqi people. Last month the Al Thawath facility, which used to aspire to produce nuclear weapons, was given back to the Iraqi people, who are going to use it as an institute for civilian science and technology. The Iraq Civil Defense Corps is gradually taking command of many areas that used to rely on U.S. troops, so much so that even Objective Jaguar (a 12km ammo dump) is in the hands of the ICDC now.
Iraqis have always been a political bunch, and lots of them are seeing the Arab League as the backwards assembly that it really is, and wishing that Iraq would leave the League.
The steps that Iraq is taking to reconstruct and become a modern country far eclipse the relatively diminutive attempts by mujahadeen to keep them from peace and prosperity.
I'm sure you can find more positive stuff than this. Here are some links:
Healing Iraq
The Independent Voice of Iraq - IRAQ TODAY -I'll try to avoid mentioning the irony that their website is down today, but I was reading their articles just a week ago so it must be a temporary ISP problem. Either that or the bloody Syrians...
Boots on the Ground
Great documentary on PBS tonight about recent history of press coverage and war. Those "left-wing conspirators" being sensored from reporting minute stories such as fighter pilots reading girly magazines when they're killing time. Reporters being detained and stripped of their credentials because they dared to want to go somewhere without "escorts." Yeah, there's a conspiracy allright. It's a conspiracy of CONTROL. They're not going to let Vietnam happen again. You're not going to see images of bloodied troops anytime soon. You'll see smart missiles and great explosions, but you're not going to see their aftermath.
This time around the amount of live coverage was incredible. But where was the substance? How can reporters give you information and substance when they're seeing the bombs right along with you? We're not getting reflection. We're getting controlled snapshots.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingame...r/chronology/#
Good series and the web site has an interesting timeline on war correspondants. Here's a quick except showing just what reporters had to go through to get a story:
It's not about sensationalism, it's about having access to the truth. Not the military's version of it. People should be able to make up their own minds about what's going on. They shouldn't have it done for them.February 25, 1991:
An Iraqi "Scud" missile strikes a barracks in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 U.S. soliders and injuring 98. Reporters descend on the scene, but are prevented from taking pictures by military police. Associated Press photographer Scott Applewhite is punched, handcuffed and has the film ripped from his cameras.
I could say the same thing in support of my own argument. I dislike the media censoring the liberation just as much as you dislike the government censoring the war.Originally posted by Jedieb
People should be able to make up their own minds about what's going on. They shouldn't have it done for them.
Darth Viscera, that seems to be a lil too positive, but fair enough: there's some positive news to report as well.
On the negative side: 12 Soldiers Die in Iraq Helicopter Crash
Okay, that is a small article, which means details will have been ommitted. MAYBE the pictures weren't allowed because they cordoned off the area, so nothing could be seen without venturing through. Maybe Mr Applewhite broke this barrier. Maybe he was looking at confidential material. You don't know he wasn't.Originally posted by Jedieb
February 25, 1991:
An Iraqi "Scud" missile strikes a barracks in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 U.S. soliders and injuring 98. Reporters descend on the scene, but are prevented from taking pictures by military police. Associated Press photographer Scott Applewhite is punched, handcuffed and has the film ripped from his cameras.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks