News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

[S.A.M.]

You see me editing out complaints against my posts? I NEVER do that.

But hey, Americans never lie, and Muslims do, so you must be right.

[superstring01]

I never said Americans never lie. Everybody lies. Including you.

Let it out, princess. Let it all out.

You know, if you convince us, it'll make it all better.

Let it out.

~String

[S.A.M.]

At least my behaviour as a moderator is not that of a drama queen. Carry on.

[superstring01]

At least my behaviour as a moderator is not that of a drama queen. Carry on.

Right. So, calling an innocent person a sodomite, flaming every topic there is, isn't being a drama queen.

I'm sorry, who's actions are currently being debated amongst her peers?

How many members have started complaint threads about me compared to you?

Quick: throw a tantrum yourself. Accuse someone of being a sodomite. It'll make it all better if you say it one more time.

Let it all out princess. Let it all out.

~String

[S.A.M.]

Are those my actions as a moderator? But in a forum where threads on Jews and atheists are severely moderated and diabtribes against Muslims considered appropriate, is it surprising that all my actions would be subject to greater scrutiny?

If I acted like you, as a moderator, you can be sure it would not be overlooked.

[Echo3Romeo]

Personally, I am interested to hear directly from somebody who has served in Iraq. It adds another perspective. If you think the media has treated/is treating the military unfairly, then here is one place you can correct some misconceptions people might have.

Two tours in Iraq here (Feb. to Oct. 2003 and Apr. 2004 to Jan. 2005) and some opinions I've developed along the way. My biggest problem with the mainstream media's reporting of conditions in Iraq is that they never really showed how bad things were before the invasion. They'll report about something negative, like how little electricity is available. Their reporting may accurate, but it lacks context. They won't explain the sad state of repair that the grid and power plants were in from 1991-2002, and they won't explain how much of that infrastructure was deliberately spared from destruction during the invasion, many times at great expense to the tactical situation. This isn't always the case, but it happens more often than not. Pretty much everyone else who has seen the situation first-hand will tell you the same thing. I think this is what our zoomie friend (USAF07) is getting at.

Another thing that irritates me is the way they play up the body count angle. After a hostile action, journalists will scurry around the battalion TOC asking anyone that will talk to them about how many people are dead or wounded - friendly, hostile, and noncombatant alike - then make that a barometer of how successful said action was. In truth, a "body count" is only a good indicator of itself, unless the piece they're composing is specifically about that (which is not what I refer to here). Yet the media obsesses over numbers of people dead.

Finally, journalists are often technically inaccurate doomsayers. Much of this job requires extensive education and training to understand, so I don't blame them for all of this. But look at the way the media treats any highbrow weapons system like the MV-22 Osprey. Few criticisms of that aircraft are valid, and none present a mitigating reason to delay its acquisition schedule, but there they are, trying to tell us that it is a flying death trap (it isn't) that the Marines don't want it (we love it) and that it isn't worth half what it costs (yet the Vietnam-era CH-46s are somehow good to go for another 20 years). Once in a while, I wish they would refrain from drawing their own retarded conclusions and just trust the people who do it for a living and whose lives depend on the technology.

Let me caveat a little bit by saying that the rampant attention whoring that some reporting comes across as is almost entirely restricted to broadcast journalists. I blame it on the immediacy of the medium. Embeds are usually pretty good for the perspective they offer, limited as it is. Two of my favorite people who have reported on the situation in Iraq with honesty, candor, and insight are Michael Yon and Bing West. In particular, West's latest book The Strongest Tribe should be the one book to rule them all. If anyone is looking for a chronicle of everything that has gone right and wrong in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, look no further.

[superstring01]

Are those my actions as a moderator? But in a forum where threads on Jews and atheists are severely moderated and diabtribes against Muslims considered appropriate, is it surprising that all my actions would be subject to greater scrutiny?

If I acted like you, as a moderator, you can be sure it would not be overlooked.

Right, SAM, whatever sooths your simple mind.

~String

[Buffalo Roam]

You see me editing out complaints against my posts? I NEVER do that.

But hey, Americans never lie, and Muslims do, so you must be right.

No you get someone else to do it for you, and we know who that has been.

[S.A.M.]

Let me caveat a little bit by saying that the rampant attention whoring that some reporting comes across as is almost entirely restricted to broadcast journalists. I blame it on the immediacy of the medium. Embeds are usually pretty good for the perspective they offer, limited as it is. Two of my favorite people who have reported on the situation in Iraq with honesty, candor, and insight are Michael Yon and Bing West. In particular, West's latest book The Strongest Tribe should be the one book to rule them all. If anyone is looking for a chronicle of everything that has gone right and wrong in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, look no further.

Embedded journalists are fed their news by US troops. Completely unreliable. Try Dahr Jamail for honest reporting. Or Greg Palast.

To provide some framework for the discussion, the Project for Excellence in Journalism conducted a content analysis of the embedded reports on television during three of the first six days of the war. The Project is affiliated with Columbia University and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The embedded coverage, the research found, is largely unreliable. It's both exciting and dull, combat focused, and mostly live and unedited. Much of it lacks context but it is usually rich in detail. It has all the virtues and vices of reporting only what you can see.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/200...0/news0214.htm

[Buffalo Roam]

Try Dahr Jamail for honest reporting. Or Greg Palast.



http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/200...0/news0214.htm

The members of IVAW do not have those kinds of contacts on their own. Dahr Jamail, who describes himslf as an independent reporter, has demonstrated that he does, identified and unidentified! Jamail, with a longstanding record of pushing claims of widespread American atrocities, also has a record of collusion with the activists of IVAW to get the story as they want it to be!

[Buffalo Roam]

Embedded journalists are fed their news by US troops. Completely unreliable. Try Dahr Jamail for honest reporting. Or Greg Palast.



http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/200...0/news0214.htm

http://keohane.blogspot.com/2008/03/...r-soldier.html

Almost two years ago Dahr Jamail was the most effective promoter of the fraudulent Jesse MacBeth video that charged the U.S. Army Rangers with mass executions of civilians that never happened. On May 21, 2006, Jamail promoted the video extenseively on his website and in his e-mail alerts, writing:

Dahr Jamail

"This 20 minute interview will change how you view the U.S. occupation of Iraq forever. I cannot possibly recommend this more highly. An Iraq war veteran tells of atrocities he and other fellow-soldiers committed regularly while in Iraq. I have never seen this level of honesty from a U.S. soldier who directly participated in the slaughtering of Iraqis."
May 21, 2006

[S.A.M.]

Show me an embedded reporter who reported on the rape and killing of unarmed civilians, torture of Iraqis, kidnappings and incarceration of civilians, including underage children and the daily air strikes by the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These are all known now and have been reported by unembedded reporters or whistleblowers.

If they were stuck so close to the arses of US troops, why didn't they report them?

[Buffalo Roam]

Show me an embedded reporter who reported on the rape and killing of unarmed civilians, torture of Iraqis, kidnappings and incarceration of civilians, including underage children and the daily air strikes by the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These are all known now and have been reported by unembedded reporters or whistleblowers.

If they were stuck so close to the arses of US troops, why didn't they report them?

How can you report some thing that didn't happen?

And it still comes down to:

Even if the Americans's are guilty of everything that you claim of them?

Does that make it right? Moslems Killing Moslems, murdering Innocent Moslems, in the name of driving out the so called occupiers?

Does that make it right?

Moslems Killing Moslems.

[iceaura]

My biggest problem with the mainstream media's reporting of conditions in Iraq is that they never really showed how bad things were before the invasion. They'll report about something negative, like how little electricity is available. Their reporting may accurate, but it lacks context. They won't explain the sad state of repair that the grid and power plants were in from 1991-2002, and they won't explain how much of that infrastructure was deliberately spared from destruction during the invasion, many times at great expense to the tactical situation.

As someone who remembers how difficult it was to get the mainstream US press to acknowledge the effects of the sanctions on Iraq prior to the invasion, I'm not surprised that you find reporting from Iraq lacks context.

As someone who has been keeping a loose track of the statistics from Iraq since, and has seen how the severity of the degradation set off by the US invasion looks even worse when contrasted with the effects of the agreed evils of Saddam and the severity of the sanctions, how poorly that reflects on the invaders and liberators and occupiers of Iraq, I am not surprised that you find reporting from Iraq lacks context.


There's a reason for the US media overlook and deflection of the context in Iraq. That context reflects very poorly on the US sanctions and on the current US created situation. The desired narrative is one of improvements to Saddam's horrible rule as brought about by US liberation, and even cursory attention to the prior context ruins that narrative.

I think this is what our zoomie friend (USAF07) is getting at.

I don't. I doubt he has much idea what things are like in Iraq now, for Iraqis, let alone what they were like eight years ago.

[Buffalo Roam]

As someone who remembers how difficult it was to get the mainstream US press to acknowledge the effects of the sanctions on Iraq prior to the invasion, I'm not surprised that you find reporting from Iraq lacks context.

As someone who has been keeping a loose track of the statistics from Iraq since, and has seen how the severity of the degradation set off by the US invasion looks even worse when contrasted with the effects of the agreed evils of Saddam and the severity of the sanctions, how poorly that reflects on the invaders and liberators and occupiers of Iraq, I am not surprised that you find reporting from Iraq lacks context.


There's a reason for the US media overlook and deflection of the context in Iraq. That context reflects very poorly on the current situation. The desired narrative is one of improvements brought about by liberation, and even cursory attention to the prior context ruins that narrative.
I don't.

Yes, you have a loose track of the statistics.

[superstring01]

Mod Note: Thread locked pending a clean-up.

While it has been noted that this is a highly useful thread, it has gotten way off track.

Mad & Asguard, I'll leave this closed until we've a chance to go over this.