Saddam lacks the conviction of even a ‘backslid’ Muslim.
We know his history.
F_alk,
I have said it before and will reiterate.
You do not understand humor(US, at least.)
I think it’s possible to point out issues in what others say without inflamming the situation. It’s easy to see perhaps a minor irritant and have it turn into something really negative and nasty.
Personally, I think Saddam is so twisted that he will go down fighting thinking somehow history will remember him fondly….
BB
Saddam is a survivor, much like Osama. He’ll weasel his way to safety…
Why not leave Baghdad already then? Oh well, the first missiles are off. War has begun.
Well, F_alk’s response was kinda, shall-we-say “straightforward” (classic German style :wink: ). But Xi’s asking for it with this jingoistic “poll”.
“72 whores(virgins)” What planet are you on? Xi, seriously :o !
Ozone27
The 4th infantry and the 1st MArine expeditionary are in Iraq.
But It looks like the U.S. is trying to negotiate a coup in order to avoid a full blown invasion.
yea, just saw a news flash the 20% of the Republican Guard was surrendering.
Coalition ttroops have surrounded Basra. Most of the government buildings in Baghdad have been destroyed by 1600 missiles. Two airfields in Western Iraq have been captured by U.S. special forces.
The 4th infantry and the 1st MArine expeditionary are in Iraq.
But It looks like the U.S. is trying to negotiate a coup in order to avoid a full blown invasion.
GW is pretty bloodthirsty, isn’t he (sarcasm intended :wink: )…I guess the folks protesting in Northern Cali are pretty bummed GW has managed so far to avoid large-scale loss of civilian life–sure makes GW look less like the brutal murderer he’s supposed to be…
Ozone27
Yah, haven’t seen those “horrible civilian deaths” all these peaceniks have been talking about. If anything, civilian lives will be saved since Saddam isn’t straving and torturing them to death. Notice how not many Iraqis who escaped from there seem to like that “guy.” But the shock and awe campaign… wow. :)
The last 5 posts should be in their own thread, and a good thread it would make.
The poll question is inflammatory no doubt about it and I dno’t see any humour in it. That being said it needn’t escalate.
BB
Al NAzariyah and Basra have fallen but some enemy combatants remain in those cities to be neutralized.
Heard within the last 2 hours that the Pentagon believes “special” Republican Guard units have counter-infiltrated Nasiriyah since the main US strike forces rolled through…
Possibly the same has happened in Basra, although the battles there could also represent pockets of resistance that have been hiding out. Remember that the war has only been going on for a matter of days, the main US forces attacked & bypassed Basra only a few hours ago…
Keep in mind that the US is using tactics heavily based on the idea of “blitzkrieg” that worked so well in WWII. The main strike forces are bypassing areas of strong enemy resistance in order to attack the enemy’s rear areas & seal them off. In the “mop-up” operations a lot will depend on whether the enemy does the human thing & surrenders, or whether they prolong the fight in order to cause more death, pain & hardship…
Ozone27
It’s been less than a week since the war began, I doubt it will end this quickly so soon.
Umm Kasr has been taken three day ago… no, there is still fighting… no, it’s taken, no, there is still fighting…
This war is a prime example of disinformation. The press who is taken with the armed forces is censored before they are allowed to send anything of their stuff home…
@F_alk:
Umm Kasr has been taken three day ago… no, there is still fighting… no, it’s taken, no, there is still fighting…
This war is a prime example of disinformation. The press who is taken with the armed forces is censored before they are allowed to send anything of their stuff home…
F_alk you are just like a friend of mine who says he doesn’t watch the (especially CNN) military coverage because it’s all Pentagon propaganda designed to demoralize the enemy. :lol:
Now sure, in order to get the access they have (which is unprecedented) CNN & other news agencies have had to agree to some tight controls. They are limited (censored) as to what they report & when they report it. But they are showing LIVE PICTURES from damm near the front lines & interviewing people as they come back from missions. How do you think the Pentagon would’ve handled the story of the GI who fragged some of his fellow soldiers had there not been a newsman there on the scene within seconds of it happening? In some cases the Pentagon will be having headaches due to the amount of access these reporters are having, especially when they start filming people being killed–which may happen in a live broadcast: I’ve certainly already seen people injured. Not saying that’s a good thing, but being informed is never a bad thing…
Except when people are only half-informed & not given proper guidance as to what they are seeing–happened a lot in Vietnam, & its happened in this war as well in regards to the “secured” towns like Basra & Um Qasr. I was not surprised in the least when casualties were taken AFTER the US battle front rolled through–these cities were isolated & surrounded by Coalition forces, in the case of Um Qasr the harbor was taken (& remains in Coalition hands) & the enemy pockets of resistance were bypassed TO BE ELIMINATED LATER AT THE COALITION’S PACE. Works pretty well with enemies that are smart & surrender when the situation is clearly hopeless, works less well when the enemy desires to die fighting, but the result give-or-take some casualties–never a good thing–is still the same.
But when people are told the cities are sealed off & have been bypassed, then they see casualties there occurring days later, they are confused because “Hey, there aren’t supposed to be any Iraqis there!” It’s a mistake for the media not to explain these things in detail.
In the case of al’Nasiriya, as I’ve said before, there is evidence of a counter-infiltration by Iraqi paramilitary forces AFTER the allies secured the bridges & rolled through. That’s pretty bad news. It seems likely to me personally as well that some Iraqi forces in al’Nasiriya, possibly in other places as well, were in hiding, waiting for the assault troops to pass through BEFORE opening fire on the mop-up troops & logistics personnel from hidden positions & ambushes. This is a bad sign that the regime is not going down without a fight, however hopeless…
Also, a certain amount of confusion from the press is understandable given the rapidity of new developments & the eagerness of reporters to scoop everyone else. Still, it beats the reporting on the Lewinsky case.
Or maybe its all just Pentagon propaganda & the Iraqis are actually kicking our a$$es. That IS what Saddam suggested last night–ON THE NEWS! :wink: To each their own…
Ozone27
That said, US reporting IS much more sensationalistic than for instance German reporting & is quite biased toward the government point of view. All of the “side reports” I’ve seen are pro-US from interviews of Iraqi expatriates & POWs families, to the “embedding” process which tends to skew reporting heavily in favor of the US side. But since Iraqis want to control what gets reported even more than the US military, access to their POV is even more difficult to get, so thats part of their problem. Reporting on global (especially European) opposition to the war has been shunted off the headlines due to the desire of US journalists to get more shots of explosions & gunfire. That doesn’t mean its all lies though–not by a long shot…
Ozone27
But when people are told the cities are sealed off & have been bypassed, then they see casualties there occurring days later, … It’s a mistake for the media not to explain these things in detail.
Fair enough, and a good possible reason. Doesn’t make the news you see “more accurate” though :). So effectively the same, just someone else to blame :)
That IS what Saddam suggested last night–ON THE NEWS! :wink: To each their own…
To each their own… that is a pretty good description of it.
I must say most trustworthy to me (but no less sensationalistic) are the few reporters left in Bagdad, even though they are accompanied by iraqi officials… just MHO.
Heh, it’s funny, I stayed up waay too late on Sunday night to watch Saddam Hussein’s address, and yet when George Bush, Ari Fleischer or (especially) journalist-hater Don Rumsfeldt comes on I change the channel. Turns out Saddam’s BS is a lot more enlightening on the general situation than hearing “we will prevail…no more questions” for the hundredth time :wink: …
I think the US media is heavily under the influence of the Pentagon in this war, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe what I see there is really happening. What I look for is what I DON’T see, what I DON’T hear, what other smaller news organizations are saying & the bits of obvious propaganda (like the story about Iraqi expatriates yearning to return to a free Iraq I mentioned before) I ignore…
I disagree that we’re hearing “disinformation”. I think a lot of Americans are seeing a whole bunch of information they can’t use, and not enough really important stuff, but it’s NOT LIES.
Keep in mind that most people on the left distrust the military, and so are less well-informed about the military than some on the right. Show these people footage of a “bypassed” city putting up resistance to troops attempting to invest it & they will scream “LIES!” because they thought the city was “taken”. The current regime in the US has a history of patronizing these people (like their huge “al’Qaeda/Iraq connection” blunder) and so they are I think justified in rejecting the Pentagon’s assessments on those grounds. But there are many on the far left–I call the ultra-left–who will reject all news, all reports, all statements from politicians that do not agree w/ their own predisposed positions on the matter. “GW Bush is an ultra-hawkish right-winger so he is always wrong” That is just not logical. “I don’t watch CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN because that’s all lies. I only listen to NPR.” Well, you are gonna get a skewed impression of what’s going on.
And (not talking about F_alk here, just the public in general) if you choose not to educate yourself on the rudiments of military matters, don’t complain that you are confused by what’s going on in Iraq & it must be due to government lies. That’s like having a physicist tell you about black holes & not believing him 'cuz “wait, time doesn’t ‘slow down’!” Or you know what I mean…
BTW heard today there is a civilian uprising against Saddam going on in Basra. Guess maybe some Iraqis could use our help after all… :wink:
Ozone27
I think the US media is heavily under the influence of the Pentagon in this war, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe what I see there is really happening. What I look for is what I DON’T see, what I DON’T hear, what other smaller news organizations are saying & the bits of obvious propaganda (…) I ignore…
True, that should be way how to “consume” the news.
I disagree that we’re hearing “disinformation”. I think a lot of Americans are seeing a whole bunch of information they can’t use, and not enough really important stuff, but it’s NOT LIES.
“disinformation” is more than open lies. The “Emser Depesche” which launched the Franco-prussian/german war in 1870 was classic disinformation: It was cutting out parts of the news, bringing a totally new context into it through that omissions. It’s not really lieing, because that would be “adding something untrue”. But “omitting something true” is part of disinformation, just as the other.
Show these people footage of a “bypassed” city putting up resistance to troops attempting to invest it & they will scream “LIES!” because they thought the city was “taken”.
Well, it always depends on your sources of the news as well. If you have to rely on a “noisy channel”, then “bypassed” can change to “taken” pretty quickly. And of course, it is easy to say the first, but add words so the feeling of what you heard goes to the second. Another strategy for misinformation, though i think this one happens more or less accidentally at the moment, through the media.
The current regime in the US has a history of patronizing these people (like their huge “al’Qaeda/Iraq connection” blunder) and so they are I think justified in rejecting the Pentagon’s assessments on those grounds.
I strongly agree.
But there are many on the far left–I call the ultra-left–who will reject all news, all reports, all statements from politicians that do not agree w/ their own predisposed positions on the matter. “GW Bush is an ultra-hawkish right-winger so he is always wrong” That is just not logical. “I don’t watch CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN because that’s all lies. I only listen to NPR.” Well, you are gonna get a skewed impression of what’s going on.
Absolutely true, but let me add:
I think this is not a problem of “far-left” only, but on “far-right” as well. Let me say: it’s a problem of “far” :)…. You can see the “biased perception” on either side.
BTW heard today there is a civilian uprising against Saddam going on in Basra. Guess maybe some Iraqis could use our help after all… :wink:
I heard that as well, though not yet as much more than “gossip”. We will see wether this news is news or propaganda.
