BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 6 - A dozen American marines were believed to have been killed today in fighting at a former government compound in the city of Ramadi, near Falluja, a military official in Washington said.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said details were still sparse and that it was unclear whether the marines had been attacked or had launched an assault on forces believed to be linked to the former regime of Saddam Hussein. News agency reports cited reports of dozens of Iraqi casualties, as well.
Earlier, the American military said that five marines and three American soldiers had died in clashes in Baghdad and Falluja, 35 miles to the west, during the last two days, as fighting between the American-led coalition and Iraqi militias continued to roil Iraq.
Christine Hauser and Kirk Semple, The New York Times
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Supporters of maverick Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq.
The source said al-Sadr's followers controlled the governor's office, police stations and the Imam Ali mosque, one of Shia Muslim's holiest shrines.
Iraqi police were negotiating to regain their stations, the source said.
The source also said al-Sadr was busing followers into Najaf from Sadr City in Baghdad and that many members of his outlawed militia, Mehdi's Army, were from surrounding provinces.
CNN
Not to mention all the other stories of soldiers and civilians dying.
Was this the plan the Bush administration had all along?
Or is this what comes from not having a plan at all?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I take it the question is rhetorical......
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
True enough.
quote:The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone.
What a horrible mess we've gotten ourselves into.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
If everything that I've been reading is true...we could be well on our way to a second Vietnam...IIRC, I was predicting this a year ago. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Bah! Listen, a LOT of this has to do with the fekking media spinning things out of control. The "Gulf Part II" as THEY dubbed it didn't go long enough for their ratings - so they have to do something so people can go back to having their channels on 24 hours a day like Sep 11, Afgahnistan and The Invasion of Iraq.
I think the situation in Spain - where the socialists were swept into power due to a terrorist act was a very bad thing as it just fueled the fire to terrorists saying if they do something heinious enough they can make a change on the way the Western World thinks. Terrorists aren't going to stop bombing people because they pull out of Iraq. A person is intelligent; 'people' are not. Our whole world has changed due to a handful of dispicable individuals (sep11). Who holds the greatest power in the world. Evil fear-mongers or the free peoples of the west? What lasting peace can be derived from cowtowing to thugs, petty criminals and murderers. These people have death-wishes. They should be pitied as their entire lives have involved death and destruction.
Turning to Iraq - there is a power vacuum. And this young Shi'ite mullah in that Iraqi town 'says' he's greatful Saddam is gone - but obviously he wants what Saddam had for himself. Is everyone so disillusioned!?!
These people are murderers - they killed and hacked to death innocent visitors to their country. If that happened in any civilised country they would be hunted down and brought to justice.
People are having the wool pulled over their eyes through fear and ignorance. The media has a LOT to answer for - but seeing as just a few many control our media now and have become so powerful - any chance of answering to anybody about what they report is NOT going to happen. Sounds like the propagandist television of Eastern Bloc and Soviet countries of the Cold War.
And in reguards to soldiers being killed in Iraq all the time - they were sent there, knowing that they could be killed. Don't give up on them - they are doing what few others of us could do, and I salute them - whole-heartedly.
Maybe one positive thing that came out of the Madrid bombing is that the US people - maybe that should read the US media acknowledges that there is more than just the US in Iraq... there are many countries there trying to bring peace to the Iraqi people's lives. Yet a few thugs and rabble rousers - that have no jobs and no hope decide to join these gangs and militias. Hello Taliban
If anything more troops should be sent to Iraq to bolster support. That might mean the United Nations should join. If France and Russia stand by and let the country destroy itself, then they are just as bad as the people destroying the country itself. Russia might not have the money - but that hasn't stopped them before. France - has a crazy leader, one who needs to be closely watched.
Pulling troops out of Iraq will do nothing but let thugs and criminals think they have 'won' and to take over. The BIG problem with Saddam Hussein (well amongst LOTS of other things) was the wealth he ammassed from Iraq's innate wealth. Iraqi citizens could be VERY well off if the natural wealth of their country had been put back into the social and economic pool of Iraq. The place is in abject poverty. A lot would blame sanctions and war... that didn't seem to stop Saddam and his Cronies from building hundreds of 'palaces'.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Another case of the cancept being sound, just not the execution of it....
GUI and WIN is another example....
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Excuuuse ME, princess? The MEDIA have a lot to answer for? "They have to do something so people can go back to having their channels on 24 hours a day"? Has all that UV radiation pouring through the hole in the ozone layer begun to affect your brain or something? The media (for the most part) recount what this invasion has LED TO, what is actually HAPPENING in Iraq as a result, yet THEY should ANSWER for reporting the FACTS? THAT is propagandist television, fool.
Regardless, pulling out is no longer an option. Not because it would be an act of kowtowing or "let the thugs and criminals know they've won", but because the coalition is now morally OBLIGATED to rebuild the place for bombing it to the ground, NOT France and Russia. Thought of that? The UN should join, you say? Too damn bad it was SHUT OUT of the war and is now an international farce, eh?
Oh, and nobody's giving up on the soldiers. But everybody IS giving up on the people who order them around. You want to talk crazy leaders who need to be closely watched? Start with Bush and work your way east from there.
I'm gonna take a shower to put these flames out. G'day mate.
[ April 08, 2004, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Another case of the cancept being sound, just not the execution of it...."
No, the concept of this war (pre-emptive unilateral invasion as opposed to international response to foreign aggression) sucked just as bad as the execution, really.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I hope the muslim fundamentalists don't get control over all of Iraq, then it could possibly be a worse regime than Saddam's.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, that's the risk of hastily installing a democratic government in any social and religious snake pit...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think we're trying to please too many factions all at once: we want democracy in Iraq, but we dont want them to elect a theocracy worse than Saddam's rule. We dont want to be stuck ruling over a colony but we want Iraq to be a progressive muslim nation moreso than any other. We want Iraq to police itself but as news yesterday showed, the police areaiding the insurgents in attacking US troops (with handguns we gave them to maintain order!).
The US needs to stop splitting hairs, back ONE person as Iraq's leader, kill these bastards that would drag our dead through the streets laughing and make sure Iraq doesnt become a terrorist breeding ground by improving the overall quality of life, thus making the man in the street out friend.
Somehow.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The US already are backing one person: Ahmad Chalabi. Of course, there is the slight problem that the good man hasn't actually set foot in Iraq for, oh, fifty years and consequently has ZERO authority there, but he's the pentagon's heartthrob, so they must know something we don't, right?
[ April 08, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or they're only backing a puppett and everyone already popular in Iraq got that way by being vocally anti-american.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Cause our backing puppet goverments has worked REALLY well in the past.
Paging the Shaw...Paging Mr. Shaw of Iran.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Wasn't Saddam one of our puppets once upon a time? I hear he's not busy just now.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Of course, there is the slight problem that the good man hasn't actually set foot in Iraq for, oh, fifty years and consequently has ZERO authority there..."
Not to mention that he's a convicted criminal and fugitive.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
While the present battles in Iraq are indeed made to sound like Vietnam II, in reality, what's happening is that the bad guys have been drawn into a stand-up fight and that is where the US Marine comes out on top.
A lot of the get revenge for killing my brother mentality falls short when it's a foreign army and not the neighboring tribe. Not to imply that there won't be civil uprisings next week.. but there's bound to be less road-side bombs.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: Wasn't Saddam one of our puppets once upon a time? I hear he's not busy just now.
Popular misconception. NO, Saddam was never even an ally: we once helped him out over even worse thugs when the world was intent on making a strange chess game out of the Cold War.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
What about when Rumsfeld visited him? When we failed to really "do anything" when Saddam gassed 5,000 KUrds?
He may not have been an "ally," but we certainly did not have anything against having him in power.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...we once helped him out over even worse thugs..."
Would that be the Iranians, to whom we also sold weapons?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Maybe this is why things aren't going so well...
quote:This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.
Not to put too fine a point on it, that's a great deal of time away from the office.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He's the President: the "office" goes wherever he is.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"we once helped him out over even worse thugs when the world was intent on making a strange chess game out of the Cold War."
So he was a pawn, then?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, yes, the rooks were taken, although he did ask to be the queen, although that spot was taken by Maggie at the time....
Maybe he left DC incase someone gassed or nuked it, really can't blame him for skying off then... Although to not have told anyone else....
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
RE: Saddam and Iran, we where supporting both sides, because we didn't really want either one to win.. but saddam's poison gas attack (not to imply that he had WMDs) turned the tide. That's when the Iran Contra thing came out and Saddam got just a little pissy. We told the Kurds and Shiates in the south, that we would help them overthrow Saddam.. and we didn't, so they got gassed too. It's no wonder that we're not that popular.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dont forget us allowing Saddam to retain use of is helicopter gunships (and those lovely missles on them) after the first Gulf War. Saddam, of course, used them to kill all those "allies" of ours that we called to "rise up" and overthrow him.
Aside from all that, I dont see whay we're not trusted in the region.
Not that any other country has dealt more fairly, of course.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: He's the President: the "office" goes wherever he is.
But we're at war man....we're at WAR!
WAR I say!
Shouldn't a War-time President� not spend 40% of his time away from the place where the war is planned and conducted?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well...if we had a clear enemy and we could track it's movements, sure.
I'm not defending his absence from the White House but as long as he's not getting blown by some ugly chick while he is there, it's not a huge issue.
Who knows? He may have all the needed facilities now at his ranch?
I still have yet to be invited.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Don't get your hopes up.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Aside from all that, I dont see whay we're not trusted in the region."
Might it have something to do with a small country called Israel, maybe?
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
Let's face it...the Bush Administration began this war under a false pretext (Weapons of Mass Destruction) so they can get control of Iraqi oil and secure bases for control of the middle east. Worse, as Richard Clarke has noted, the Neocons got so obsessed over Iraq that they never gave serious priority to the war on Al-Queda. As for the so-called "liberal media", that is a sham...after all most TV, cable stations, radio stations and newspapers nowadays are controoled by giant media conglomerates that are decidedly pro-republican...hell Fox might as well be a propaganda arm for the US Government. I found a better source of news nowadays on this deplorable war; namely the Common Dreams website. It has been doing its share of reprting on the unraveling of the lies surrounding this war.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Sometimes, other people say it better than you can.
quote:And since a picture is worth a thousand words, here are a couple of pictures. On the left is Fallujah yesterday, the center of a week-old uprising that threatens our entire mission in Iraq. On the right is our war president, George Bush, demonstrating his sense of urgency over this problem by, yes, taking yet another vacation. In case you're curious, he was leading a nature tour of his ranch in Crawford.
Well, you see, when you invade a country, even if the population might be happy of seeing their oppressive leader overthrown, they will not be too eager to see an alien government in charge. Not to say, of course, the political factions and tribes trying to profit from the situation.
Behold the chiites. Or the Baath partisans. Not until one (and just one) of their groups takes control of Iraq will be some sort of 'peace'. There is no conception of a modern, democratic, and participative nation-state. These people are used to a whole different concept of country. And, provided they all like the same strip of land, the US Govt (and dare I say, the UN) proposal of having an all-encompassing state for every tribe in Iraq is anything but a peaceful solution.
Heck, look at those 3 Japanese hostages to see what I mean...
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Now they are saying some Americans are missing, too. And possibly some Italians, a Briton, a Canadian, two Palestinians...I'm guessing most of these hostages will be killed.
Iraq has turned into the new Lebanon.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
I'm thinking we have but two choices here. Nuke the SOBs or pull out. The first one would cause more problems than it solves and the second one won't happen because Bush Inc. doesn't want to loose face.
Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
at this point he could decide to be 'gracious' and allow the UN to step in.. then as the assembled nations of the world get their asses kicked he could say 'see, told you the UN hasn't got what it takes...'
like, around election time or something...
(actually the loss of soft drink sales and construction contracts will probably remove most of bush's corporate backing, the real source of his power. commercial interests in this case have been shown to be a for more unstoppable source of military might than the mere soldiers and bombs he would be left with if the corporate $$ dont get what they were promised.. a piece of a new empire outpost and new sales territory)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Since when has the UN wanted any part of this mess? Sure, they want to oversee the elections, the contracts for rebuilding and the oil flow, but I sure havent seen them leap to provide military or even police-enforcment support.
It really seems that since we snubbed the UN and invaded anyway, they now want to wash their tenticles of the whole business.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Bush's range... very lush. I alway pictured a Texan ranch as being quite dry and flat.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I always picture Australia as one big Ayers Rock.
Last time I was in Dallas it was a cold wet shithole of a town with lots of potholes.
Mexico is one big set from an old Clint Eastwood western (although I know those were shot overseas).
Britan's just one big pub.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Apparently, Bush also spent the day being filmed fishing with his father, so that he could aim part of his campaign at the "sportsman" demographic.
Iraq has descended into the worst fighting since we "won" the war, and Bush decides to go on vacation so he can fish with Daddy and make campaign commercials.
And people complain about Clinton. I mean, when he needed a break, he just took ten minutes out for a quick blow job. And, half the time, he didn't even stop working during it. If that's worth an impeachment, shouldn't Bush be in jail, or something?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Aparantly slacking off is acceptable but a little extramarital head is wrong.
I was pissed at Clinton over it myself: he's the fucking President and he couldnt find a better looking woman to blow him?!? He should've been nailing the Playmate of the Year, for fuck's sake!
...then again, Bill's taste in women is pretty bad. Go look at what Hillary looked like when they got married: stop a clock ugly.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, there's some trenchant commentary for ya.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Since when has the UN wanted any part of this mess?"
Since Bush began his WMD crusade.
"Sure, they want to oversee the elections, the contracts for rebuilding and the oil flow, but I sure havent seen them leap to provide military or even police-enforcment support."
Well, if one of your members were poised to do something that went against your charter and then scoffed you in front of the whole world for not subserviently falling in line, would YOU be leaping to provide support?
"It really seems that since we snubbed the UN and invaded anyway, they now want to wash their tenticles of the whole business."
THEIR "tentacles" are still clean.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Suure they are: "clean" is not stopping fighting or aiding in rebuilding untill everything is nice and safe. Then they'll demand "equal participation".
I'm not condoning any of the US's actions but if the UN was half as moral as they claim, NOW s the time to step in and lend aid to stop the fighting and restore order as soon as possible.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
If the US would let them they might. Remember, the UN can't force the US to do anything unless they vote to use force. Which, ain't going to happen
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Right. And just in case you haven't been following the news too closely: the UN has demanded equal participation FROM THE START, and would be lending a lot MORE aid if the neocons weren't constantly stonewalling it to hold on to their fucking reconstruction contracts. Guess morality wasn't and isn't that important to the US either, eh?
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
What really concerns me is how this war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is not helping against our real enemy, Al-queda; if anything, this Iraq occupation (in more ways than one) is actually aiding and abetting terrorism by proving to Arabs just how dangerous and arrogant Americans truly are.
What really makes many Arabs angry is how we back authoritarian regimes and support Israel so unconditionally. Bush and his neocon-artists in this regard has been particulary bad. They have lifted the bans on assassinations by the US Government, they have shown complicit backing of Ariel Sharon's building of a security wall around the West Bank (which seriously violates UN resolutions) and have generally behaved in a high-handed and arrogant manner. To be fair, the Arab governments are also responsible; by refusing to conduct any sort of democratic reform, they are only aggravating internal tensions and forcing opposition parties to more extreme measures.
No one argues Saddam Hussien is a saint by any means; however its not enough to simply remove a dictator; you also have to provide an alternative that will truly make people's lives better. In this respect the US has failed miserably. We have not fully repaired the basic infrastructure of Iraq, nor have we provided an Iraqi govenment that is truly capable of administering the country. The so-called "June 30" deadline for handing over control is a sham; the provisions our government laid down effectively leaves most of the country's economy in control of American corporations like Haliburton.
Let's face it, the Neocon-artists are not spreading democracy, they are spreading corporate imperialism.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
With measures like funding the opposers of Chavez in Venezuela (meaning, financial support for big enterprises and banking institutions contrary to the demagogic, yet, democratic, Hugo Chavez's presidency), you know the US won't do anything good anywhere else.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Al Qaeda. Al Qaida.
Possibly others. But never ever anything that starts "qu."
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Nice of you to come out of lurk to post Mr. Simon. Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir: With measures like funding the opposers of Chavez in Venezuela (meaning, financial support for big enterprises and banking institutions contrary to the demagogic, yet, democratic, Hugo Chavez's presidency), you know the US won't do anything good anywhere else.
You can also look at what is happening in Haiti; the recent coup and removal of Aristede was aided and abetted by Washington. The noecons hate Aristede because Bill Clinton liked him and held him in power. As one writer noted, one thing the US Government fears and hates more than anything else is what he called "A good example", that is, a South American country capable of standing up to American businesses. That's one reason for the continuing embargo on Cuba.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Please site documentation of Washington aiding in Aristede's removal. I'd be intrested in reading that, as I've seen nothing on CNN, BBC or the newspapers to back up that claim.
The only person I've heard say that was so far to the Left as to be rabid. And Aristede himself said he was "kidnapped by the americans" but his chief aide that evacuated with him says otherwise.
HOw was Hati "standing up" to anyone: it's one of the most poverty stricken countries in the world and their leader was insanely unpopular by lining his own pockets with the country's money: ever think those might be factors in people wanting to get rid of him?
Living here in south Florida, I have a much closer viewpoint on Hati than most, and I work with six Hatian coworkers that have told me of the hopeless conditions over there and how happy they are that Aristede is gone. Mabye something can change now for the better.
Assuming the US doesnt back another version of Aristede or try to re-install him to power, that is.
[ April 11, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"And Aristede himself said he was 'kidnapped by the americans'..."
Well, the only evidence I've heard is Aristide's own statement. But, it's not like it wasn't a believeable story.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Why would we kidnap him? If we wanted him removed, we could've just prevented his escape. HIs own people would've "removed" him forever.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, this way, we got rid of him, but we can still pretend we were actually being helpful.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Mabye something can change now for the better."
Going by the feeds that were coming from Haiti in the month or so leading up to Aristede's "departure", I wouldn't count on it.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The problem is, no matter how bad Aristide was...he was democratically elected, in the beginning at least, and no matter what anyone says, the rebels that ousted him were ten times worse than he was.
THEIR war was killing all the innocents in Haiti.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Even if he was democratically elected, he constantly screwed his own people and brought this (violent) uprising on himself.
Three bucks says the UN gets involved once things get to the "international news stage".
Of course, many more people will be dead by then.
...and someone will blame it all on the US. Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
You mean Iraq? Or Haiti? Because Haiti's now gone from the "international news stage."
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And I get the impression Iraq is sliding from that stage as well.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
AFAIC, that June 30 "handover" is nothing but a sham; the interim government will be nothing but a US occupying regime with a local face. The econoly will be largely under US corporate control and the US will have troops over there. I find it hypocritical that Bush is endorsing a UN plan after he stood and endorsed Sharon's Gaza plan which essentially disregards UN Resolutions for Israel to pull out of the West Bank and throws out over 5 decades of US Middle East policy. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"throws out over 5 decades of US Middle East policy"?!? Not that any of that "policy" was ever effective. Our "policy" was to back thugs that were popular with large groups of thugs. cough*Saudi Arabia*cough! It didnt work out too well, really. I cant think of a better policy to throw out.
Take a hard look at ALL the UN member countries sometime.
You'd be hard pressed not to find hypocricy in any of them: they all back or oppose resolutions based on what's in it for them.
Iraq is a live grenade: the US now only wants to back the UN aid because it's better (for the US and Britan) if Iraq blows up in someone else's hands: particularly in an election year.
Think of it as "middle east hot-potato".
Everyone will pass on hard decisions untill the elections....I imagine that the UN will avoid any Iraq entanglments untill then as well: better for them not to comit untill they know who's in charge of the US military (fuck-o Rumsfeld, fuck-o Cheney or whatever fuck-o Kerry would install).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The membership of the United Nations consists of nearly every nation on the planet, and thus saying "look at how its members act" is something like saying "it's made up of people, and we all know how they are," which isn't an untrue statement, necessarily, but so general as to be useless (not to mention nihilistic and self-defeating).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I refer more towards the few powerful nations in the UN assembley. The old skool NATO ones.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Take a hard look at ALL the UN member countries sometime... they all back or oppose resolutions based on what's in it for them."
True. The US just does a disproportionally large share of it.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
(Edit) Forget this post...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Take a hard look at ALL the UN member countries sometime... they all back or oppose resolutions based on what's in it for them."
True. The US just does a disproportionally large share of it.
Well....that you hear about anyway.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, until I could get a good behind the scenes look at what the others are doing you have no idea of what kinds of politicing are happening....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I mean that the US is just far less discreet than it's fellow NATO members.
When Britan or Germany fuck someone over, you dont hear about it sometimes for years.
Here, someone will write a book at the drop of a hat (or the drop of a job).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Indeed, it's hard to imagine a news agency being critical of government policies in such backwards places.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hey, speaking of "not hearing about it for years", the ol' Oil for Food cash scam is finally starting to heat up.
The UN's reputation is literally riding on all the investigated parties coming forward of their own volition and explaining how they helped saddam skim $10 billion from the UN.
That's more money than the GNP of several UN member countries!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The UN's reputation as what? A humanitarian organization?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
A fair and balanced organization.......
((I typed that without laughing....))
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: A fair and balanced organization.......
((I typed that without laughing....))
Which just re-elected Sudan to the Human Rights Council.
Well, who better to teach Iraq about Human Rights than a country that can boast the "worst humanitarian situation in the world." Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Oh, and to answer the original question:
First, one should keep in mind that Fallujah is not a microcosm of Iraq.
Moreover, there are several elements missing which we would expect to encounter if things were really as bad as the press makes them out to be:
For one, there are no reports of massive waves of Iraqis fleeing from here to there. If people were desperately afraid for their personal security, there would be exactly such movements.
For another, if the vast bulk of the reconstruction effort had crawled to a standstill over a lack of security, we would be hearing about that, too, which suggests that a lot of work is proceeding. Perhaps not as fast as wished, but proceeding nonetheless.
For a third, for all the bad-news reporting, we haven't been hearing about deterioration in Iraqi quality of life. I don't mean complaints about being occupied, but rather want and deprivation.
Also one should take into account that another reason the picture of Iraq's condition may be incomplete is the fact that a large number of people have vested themselves in the failure of reconstruction. This includes, but is not limited to, the bulk of those now covering the war and the editors and media personages who oversee them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote: I don't mean complaints about being occupied, but rather want and deprivation.
Actually, I'd seen reports (about a month back) of rolling blackouts in parts of Bagdhad.
I dont know if it makes the overall "quality of life" is better or worse but thousands of cell-phones and laptop computers have been imported in thec past couple of months: stuff the adverage Iraqui had no acess to before.
Who knows? We might get the first Iraqui Flarite someday soon.
...though Treknobabble in Arab languages might be a rough translation.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
T'Pol: If we go to warp, only those of faith will be able to withstand the immense magnitude of pressure. Archer: Allah help us. If we succeed, the Xindi Crusaders will soon learn the punishment for their sins.
Sorry, I just had do an al-Qaeda-like "Enterprise" scenario... Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Iraqi".
And I sure hope someone's putting more effort into guaranteeing the Iraqis get food, clean water, sanitation, medicine, electricity, air conditioning, etc. than they're putting into making sure they have completely unnecessary tech gadgets.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Jamiraquis, nice funk-muslim band.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"We might get the first Iraqui Flarite someday soon."
At least then we'd have a first-hand unfettered perspective on things, y'know, one NOT automatically slanted against either camp by any media outlet. If nothing else it'd be a welcome reprieve from the endless stream of casualty reports and the liberal conspiracy theories Rob's begun to spout again.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Actually, I'd seen reports (about a month back) of rolling blackouts in parts of Bagdhad.
So Iraq is like California already. Now that's progress!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"At least then we'd have a first-hand unfettered perspective on things, y'know, one NOT automatically slanted against either camp by any media outlet."
Well, if you want to read the thoughts of a regular Iraqi citizen, try here.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote: Actually, I'd seen reports (about a month back) of rolling blackouts in parts of Bagdhad.
So Iraq is like California already. Now that's progress!
I wonder if the ones in Bagdhad were casued by manipulation of the energy supply by greedy companies too.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
No. Just bombs.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I wonder what Muslim Funk would sound like.
To the downloadings!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "We might get the first Iraqui Flarite someday soon."
At least then we'd have a first-hand unfettered perspective on things, y'know, one NOT automatically slanted against either camp by any media outlet.
Yeah, that Al-Jezerra is the pinnacle of unbiased news c0overage. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
