It's always humorous to hear the right complain that no good news ever gets reported from Iraq.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 20 2006, 02:31 PM) [snapback]364730[/snapback]</div>

Knowing Bushs history of bombing al-Jazeera offices,I wouldnt be surprised if uncooperative journalists arent being targeted remotely ,under Bush directives.
Sounds outlandish?
Journalists have been killed by Bush in the past.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=1...-name_page.html
"In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, al-Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US missile strike on the station's Baghdad centre."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 20 2006, 11:31 AM) [snapback]364730[/snapback]</div>

Such a statement usually means you're at par - you haven't made any change in a situation, good or bad. That's demonstrably not true in Iraq, where all the changes that affect life there have been resoundingly disastrous - if it were a basketball game, the score so far would be Forces Opposed to USA: 10,000,000, USA: Zero. Not a score to make one cautious about whom to bet on in Vegas.

But making the statement IS a decidely new experience for Bush: for the first time the guy's acknowledging that something isn't simply black or white. Not winning but not losing is dead center in a shade of grey, a tint heretofore invisible to Bush's monochromatic eye.

I'm sure it makes him intensely uncomfortable.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

...and today, Bush seemed to acknowledge that the force in Iraq is too small. Army Chief of Staff Shinseki and Secretary of the Army Tom White must be psychic, they knew the force was too small way back in 2002, BEFORE THE WAR STARTED!

Unfortunately, they got fired for not telling Rummy and others the lies they wanted to hear.

You can't say Dubya is dumb, it only took him a few years and a few thousand American lives to catch on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Dec 20 2006, 01:51 PM) [snapback]364808[/snapback]</div>

That is true for the majority of Iraqis, who live in Baghdad, but the rest of the country is doing pretty well. The Kurds are pretty happy in the north, as their part of the "federation" seems to be coming along well. See http://www.theotheriraq.com/ for Kurdistan's take on the issue. This makes Turkey very nervous, of course, as they did not want an independent Kurd republic on their border.

Iraqi support for US troops staying more than a year in Iraq overall (including war-torn Baghdad) remains at about 50% in the most recent polls I've seen, with the other 50% coming in mostly with us getting out in a few months "after things settle down". Seems no one wants us to withdraw immediately in the polling (I'm sure there are some who do, but they don't make a significant amount of the population in the polls). I don't see how the structural changes that need to be made can be made in less than another 2 - 3 years, and I figure the President has only two years left to do anything before the bloodbath begins. Let's hope he can do it before a repeat of southeast Asia happens in the middle east in 2009.

 

What’s even more pathetically humorous is the hateful condemnation thrown at America by Americans for these murders overwhelmingly done by terrorist. All the while nothing is said about the terrorist, no condemnation not even a light scolding. Thanks to you and the MSM the terrorist seem to be winning even though to date they have not won one battle. :angry:


http://www.cpj.org/killed/killed05.html
http://www.newssafety.com/stories/ifex/iraq2110.htm

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sharkmeister @ Dec 20 2006, 06:56 PM) [snapback]364900[/snapback]</div>

The force in Iraq was just the right size for the battle and the overthrow of the Saddam regime. If you recall that took very little time and few casualties. The nation building part has been under staffed but that could be attributed to fact that the situation is new and changes daily. I'm still waiting for some type of Demoncratic plan for Iraq, it's easy to criticize. Oh I almost forgot the Clinton plan. Do nothing, take no responsibility and blame others.

Wildkow

 

What gets me is the people that will complain about how bad it is, what we should have done, what we shouldn't have done, how we could have done it better, etc... without having a clue about what's really going on. People are content to sit at home in front of their TV on their couch right here in the US and watch CNN and assume they know anything about the war. People are quick to say we should get out, we shouldn't have gone in, and make judgements about the Iraqi's while not having ever set foot within a thousand miles of the region and definitely not knowing an Iraqi from Adam.

And then those same people are astonished when they meet someone who's been there and those people tell them what they see on the news isn't the real story, talk of how great the Iraqi people are, and have a totally different opinion that those whom form their opinions from their lazy boys watching leftist news stations.

Trust me, I spent a year and a half there... it's nothing like you perceive on the news...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Dec 20 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]364808[/snapback]</div>

Oftentimes I think situations of discomfort are necessary for us to reconsider ourselves and the consequences of our actions. It's actually amusing to me that our fearless leader is actually so unfamilar with discomfort and managing it to a positive outcome.

He was probably out doing some blow while they taught that in "Intro to Politics/Old Boy Network 101: how to always feel good at the expense of others."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(psychojerm @ Dec 21 2006, 11:18 AM) [snapback]365233[/snapback]</div>

Were you active military before you were sent there, or were you in an activated National Guard group? I'm interested because the "talk" now is that while the active duty guys are certainly gung-ho, the Guard troops are all saying we should abandon the mission and let the Iraqis kill themselves. I don't believe it for a minute, as the guys in the Guard I have met certainly don't fit that profile.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 22 2006, 12:48 AM) [snapback]365563[/snapback]</div>

neither. I worked over there as a civilian contractor to the military. First I was on some jobs in various places in Iraq, then spend the last 13 months in Baghdad. I worked on contracts with many different branches that were comprised of both active duty and guardsmen who had been called up. I can tell you that out of the thousands of troops i dealt with over that time, never did one of them say "we shouldn't be here".

The biggest issue I think is the lack of quality news reporting on the whole issue. We could get CNN over there, and it never ceased to amaze everyone how misrepresented the stories were. Far from factual. And I encourage anyone who doesn't believe that to ask a soldier or contractor who's been there what their opinion of the news reporting is. You learn first hand when you see something happen, and then see it reported as something totally different 20 minutes later on the news.

And to stick with the title of this thread, yes i will be first in line to complain that no good news is reported. for every negative article you read there are probably 100 good ones that should have been published. power coming on-line, schools opening for children, new textbooks provided, quality of goods that are available to Iraqi's now, wages and salaries being increased, economic growth, etc... but none of those things are worth reporting right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(psychojerm @ Dec 22 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]365610[/snapback]</div>

Well, the bad news we get it pretty dire. There's a new zogby poll out today saying 72% of troops think we should leave iraq (944 person sample size).

Generally, the impression I have is we don't see any other stories covered because it's not safe enough for the journalists to go get them.

I mean, 76 bodies were found in Bagdhad yesterday.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 22 2006, 09:57 AM) [snapback]365629[/snapback]</div>

like i said... read all the polls you want. but go and find a soldier or someone who's been there to tell you that. there's something to be said for polls saying one things, but actually talking to them and finding out another.

the journalists don't have to go get any stories. they can report the same stories from standing on top of their hotels just like they do the bad ones.

yes, they find bodies all the time. people are killing people. but then again that's no different than it's always been. it just hasn't been publicized. that's the region. the first week i was at a site in a small village there was a huge explosion about 7 or 8 at night right across the street. there was a video rental store that was renting "blue movies" and some of the locals had asked them to stop. well, they didn't stop so those locals blew up the store. that's just way of life over there. you won't change that.

we aren't trying to make the place a perfect society, just get them set up so they can run it themselves.

how many bodies were found or people murdered in the US yesterday? i bet a lot more than 76. what's the difference?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(psychojerm @ Dec 22 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]365632[/snapback]</div>

The difference is Iraq is smaller than Texas. The difference is that was in one city. And that the day before a different 53 bodies were dumped.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 22 2006, 10:25 AM) [snapback]365634[/snapback]</div>

there are 16 million people in baghdad. how many people are killed in cities of relatively the same size in the US? look at detroit, LA, New york, etc... it's not a matter of size, but population if you want to break it down.

statistics say there are 16,000 murders per year in the US. the population of Iraq is basically 1/10 of the size of the US. so, to be on par with the US's murder rate, which is a peaceful country, they would have 1,600 murders a year. so how many would put them on par with the US for being in a hostile region? you decide...

also don't forget that you're looking at bodies found, and not when these people died. no one is saying that people aren't dying. Like I said before, it's the middle east, and that's just what they do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 21 2006, 01:19 PM) [snapback]365197[/snapback]</div>

Well said Wildkow!

One thing that just pulls my chain about the americans complaining about every thing we do & how we do it there, is they seem to forget WE are at WAR. We are not overthere doing a police action these are soldiers NOT policemen. They are there to win the war not arrest people. They are being bombed and shot at every day, the enemy is not following the rules of the genieva convention. the terrorists are not wearing uniforms, they do use humans as shields, they do use holy places as armorments, The USA need to do in Iraq what they did in WW2 that should end it.... But that wont happen do to we do not want to hurt anyone feelers...


Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C. … Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000. While that number sounds high – astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it’s significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation’s capital. “It’s 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.,†King told Crowley. Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include: Detroit – 41.8 per 100,000. Baltimore – 37.7 per 100,000. … The American city with the highest civilian death rate was New Orleans before Katrina – with a staggering 53.1 deaths per 100,000 – almost twice the death rate in Iraq. :blink:
http://crookedtimber.org/2006/05/31/speaking-of-hackery/


According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9. :blink:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008392

But you dont hear the concerned americans complaining about the death rates here, instead its quick jump on the band wagon and ignor the facts sent in by anyone else thats not in their party or doesn't think the way they do.. :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 20 2006, 01:31 PM) [snapback]364730[/snapback]</div>

Is this a bad thing?

Can we send some lawyers to cover the war too?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Dec 22 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]365660[/snapback]</div>

The DC comparison has been widely disproven. Baghdad's violent death rate since January 2006 is about 238 per 100,000 people; by contrast, Washington, D.C., had a homicide rate of 35.4 per 100,000 in 2005.

But here ya go. I've done this before, here it is again. Let's construct an imaginary country out of US states that about equals the population of Iraq. Here's a configuration incorporating the Miami drug trade and the urban decay of Detroit and D.C.
DC — Population: 572,059
2002:262 2003:248 2004:198 2005:196
Michigan Population 9,938,444
2002:678 2003:612 2004:643 2005:616
State of Florida — Population: 17,789,864
Murder rate 2002:911 2003:924 2004:946 2005:883
2 US states & 1 district, total population, 28,300,367
Total murders, 2002-2005: 7767

Iraq — Population: 26,074,906
CIVILIAN DEATHS 2003-2006: Total 49,000-54,000

That's 7767 to 49000.

Just look at Iraq's monthly rates for this year:
Jan:1778 Feb:2165 March:2378 April:2284 May:2669 June:3149 July:3590 August:3009 September:3345 October: 3709

So Iraq, a country with 1/10 the US population, is experiencing 9/11 numbers of death EACH FRIGGIN MONTH.

The 3709 in October as reported as being the worst since the war began. And the upward trend in 2006 certainly doesn't look good.

Oh, and Steve King, who floated those DC numbers, also states:
"The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day....I will leave it to the reader to decide if the greatest threat is Osama bin Laden or the Open Borders Lobby. " 12 a day. Thats 4380 a year. Evidently, according to Steve King, Mexicans are more dangerous than Al Quaida.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ia0...60505_bite.html

Statistics from The Brookings Institue and FBI and Rep Steve King.
http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf