You know SDW, I actually agree with you on this thread . . . tp a [oint.
i think that this is the impression that we get because . .. well they are giving us the sensationalistic news . . . you knnow the stuff like : American's taken prisoner etc . . . they don't have an over-all view of the field and so they tell us the small stuff . . .and then interview the families . . .
But, with that said, I was under the impression that it was Powell who had originally called for a far bigger force
and
It is true that they had left their tails exposed more than they thought they had . . . they admitted that the guerilla attacks from the South were not expected to happen with such determination
25 000 Iraqi's dead?! Thats out of whack. I hope when its all over and the reports come out that we don't get a big friggin surprise. The only thing is the Iraqis aren't any where near that number.
yeah see i didnt' hear that anywhere but my teacher said it, and since he is normally is correct i assumed this was a newer report that i hadn't read yet since it was earlier 2day...i will ask him 2morrow where he heard that
perhaps he said it wrong and its 2500 still alot but would seem more likely
Are we talking about solely civilian deaths?? Or + army.
That article gives compelling evidence of a lot more civilians deaths than is being allowed by military censors but theres still the issue of why Iraq isn't hyping it.
Yeah, wouldn't that just be a riot if we got bogged down in a quagmire war where tens of thousands of people died on both sides?
Wouldn't that just be a hoot?
Politik is ugly.
A hoot? Are you suggesting that I was making light of that possibility? I assure you, I was not. I would find it unbelievably disgusting if this administration, having shown so much arrogance and poor judgment in foreign affairs, allow those same traits to enter into their military planning.
But of course, a little touch of criticism of your boy Bush, even if speculative as in my post, and, like clockwork, you knee jerk. And then, like clockwork, you'll deny that he's your boy.
25,000 Iraqi dead, if it's true (first time I've heard these numbers, but I'm not into numbers), would probably account for so many military barracks and entrenched possitions we've already hit, mostly with air power.
Hassan i Sabbah, I read your article--it seems a balanced and reasoned coverage of how the war is going. The war coverage *I* have seen is much, much more partisan than that.
it's probably the only place you are going to get accurate up to the minute reports of progress, as well as political, situational and strategic analysis
Or you could say it is going worse than we are told. For instance, about the supposed Basra uprising:
Quote:
Sources: No Iraqi Uprising In Basra
Mar 26, 2003 - 2236 GMT
Stratfor's Iranian and Russian sources say that a widely reported uprising against the Iraqi government in Basra did not, in fact, occur. Arab TV channels are confirming this information, broadcasting video that shows streets are calm in Basra. News of the uprising was initially reported by a British journalist and then supported by British military officials. However, some sources say the reports were part of the British command's psychological warfare operation, aimed at suppressing the morale of Iraqi forces and encouraging a real uprising in Basra and other Shia-populated areas of Iraq.
British Special Air Service units -- as well as MI6 operatives and agents -- have been reported inside Basra. But any efforts to provoke an uprising have failed so far, Stratfor's Russian sources say. As to reports that dozens of civilians in Basra came under mortar attack from Iraqi troops, Iranian and Arab sources say citizens gathered March 25 to express anger with coalition forces' bombing of civilian areas in the city -- not anger against the Iraqi government -- and that the mortar bombing did not occur.
it's probably the only place you are going to get accurate up to the minute reports of progress, as well as political, situational and strategic analysis
Just because you have to pay to read it does not make it fair and accurate. And just because you agree with it does not make it so either.
Oh, and on your second post about this site, I do not think that I would trust what a Russian operative has to say about this war. They are not exactly all happy about us being there.
Just because you have to pay to read it does not make it fair and accurate.
No one said it does
Quote:
And just because you agree with it does not make it so either.
I actually don't agree with the political views of stratfor's directors
Quote:
Oh, and on your second post about this site, I do not think that I would trust what a Russian operative has to say about this war.
They point out in another article on Basra that their Russian and Iranian sources means high government officials and a slew of stratfor Russian and Iranian analysts. Mind you, stratfor's russian and iranaian analysts were the US government's russian and iranian analysts.
You might want to find out what stratfor is. Then it would be good to find out what www.us-iraqwar.com is. Then hopefully you can stop your frieght train of erroneous assumptions.
"25000 Iraqis dead"...that is way out of the ballpark
This site http://www.iraqbodycount.org is a conservative estimate (relies on western media reports). Maybe 25000 Iraqis dead would be an accurate estimate in a few weeks, (specially if the US uses tactical nuclear weapons).
To claim that a war is going less well than it really is would be a military first..and to what end? Military operations never go exactly to plan and reports indicate problems.
Today, in disgust, I unsubscribed to my cable TV service and replaced it with satellite DirecTV. The package includes WorldLink TV. Does anyone here get this service? The "Mosaic" News on WorldLink delivers a comprehensive range of news reports from all over the world, including live television out of Baghdad and the Middle East. The video footage coming out of Iraq is horrifying, showing that war is not a bunch of talking heads, smoothly orchestrated soundbites, retired cigar chomping generals and a fireworks display to swill Bud Lite to and whoop it up.
War is so horrific...terrible things are being done by both sides. Captured US and UK troops have have been executed summarily by the Iraqi army. Also, Iraqi troops, apparently surrendering, often start shooting at coalition troops. Iraqi troops bearing white flags have been shot dead and civilians have been kidnapped. Baghdad University is in ruins, as well as its museums and cultural sites.
The US media is a sick joke, a propaganda machine, nothing more than baby formula. Why do they think we all need nannying, or can't handle real war footage??
We know that our old bud Saddam is a horror-story, but if the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated so badly, why are all the uncensored reports from numerous non-US media stations showing angry, furious people cursing and denouncing the US and the UK?
Here's an imaginary scene for anyone living in "Anywheresville", surburban US, relaxing with the kids at home on with the tranquil afternoon: Suddenly the calm is shattered by a huge blast casued by an an Iraqi bomb, the street is leveled, houses are on fire, every window for 10 blocks around is shattered and there's bodies, blood and dismembered limbs lying in the street, deafened people wandering around in shock. If you were affected like this, who amongst us wouldn't want bloody revenge? Innocent New Yorkers got to know the horrors of war a year and a half ago, because some fundamentalist religious madman was raging about something that happened 10 years previously. One thing I heard a seasoned commentator say the other day..and that is "we Americans in our world of soundbites and perpetual distraction tend to forget very quickly. In comparison, people in middle eastern nations do not". If the furious mood of the Iraqi people (as well as in many other Arab states) is indicative, Orange and Red alerts will be the colors of the future.
I know most of you folk in here are guys, and males (tend to) be attracted to war (I've seen the jingosim at UCLA frat parties.."bomb the ragheads", "kill all muslims", etc....truly disgusting). Being against this war is not "Anti Anerica", or "unAmerican" etc . I am scared what the next decade might bring as a result of being too proud and ego-driven to use our words. 80% of the world is now mad as hell at us after all the good will following 9-11. How utterly sad, what a waste.
Comments
i think that this is the impression that we get because . .. well they are giving us the sensationalistic news . . . you knnow the stuff like : American's taken prisoner etc . . . they don't have an over-all view of the field and so they tell us the small stuff . . .and then interview the families . . .
But, with that said, I was under the impression that it was Powell who had originally called for a far bigger force
and
It is true that they had left their tails exposed more than they thought they had . . . they admitted that the guerilla attacks from the South were not expected to happen with such determination
Originally posted by audiopollution
Perhaps they worry that the US will use chemical weapons.
there are newspaper articles in major Mid-East countries and cities that assume that we will
They would be beefing it up you'd think.
look here
or for your own good:
Look here
flick.
perhaps he said it wrong and its 2500 still alot but would seem more likely
That article gives compelling evidence of a lot more civilians deaths than is being allowed by military censors but theres still the issue of why Iraq isn't hyping it.
Originally posted by groverat
Yeah, wouldn't that just be a riot if we got bogged down in a quagmire war where tens of thousands of people died on both sides?
Wouldn't that just be a hoot?
Politik is ugly.
A hoot? Are you suggesting that I was making light of that possibility? I assure you, I was not. I would find it unbelievably disgusting if this administration, having shown so much arrogance and poor judgment in foreign affairs, allow those same traits to enter into their military planning.
But of course, a little touch of criticism of your boy Bush, even if speculative as in my post, and, like clockwork, you knee jerk. And then, like clockwork, you'll deny that he's your boy.
Better.
Not according to the officers of the army fighting the war, it's not.
(As reported in that 5th Columnist anti-American bastion of liberal journalism known as The Washington Post anyway.)
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, the Blix quote...I can't find it. I saw it on TV today. It was unbelievable. You should have heard him.
The solution then, is to stop watching TV news. It's sensationalist by design.
Originally posted by New
password?
it costs money. buy a subscription from www.stratfor.com
it's probably the only place you are going to get accurate up to the minute reports of progress, as well as political, situational and strategic analysis
Sources: No Iraqi Uprising In Basra
Mar 26, 2003 - 2236 GMT
Stratfor's Iranian and Russian sources say that a widely reported uprising against the Iraqi government in Basra did not, in fact, occur. Arab TV channels are confirming this information, broadcasting video that shows streets are calm in Basra. News of the uprising was initially reported by a British journalist and then supported by British military officials. However, some sources say the reports were part of the British command's psychological warfare operation, aimed at suppressing the morale of Iraqi forces and encouraging a real uprising in Basra and other Shia-populated areas of Iraq.
British Special Air Service units -- as well as MI6 operatives and agents -- have been reported inside Basra. But any efforts to provoke an uprising have failed so far, Stratfor's Russian sources say. As to reports that dozens of civilians in Basra came under mortar attack from Iraqi troops, Iranian and Arab sources say citizens gathered March 25 to express anger with coalition forces' bombing of civilian areas in the city -- not anger against the Iraqi government -- and that the mortar bombing did not occur.
from the stratfor war site
Originally posted by Flick Justice
Win? I don't know how this is a win for anyone..
look here
or for your own good:
Look here
flick.
That is your source of news? Good luck sir, you are being fed a load of bull.
Originally posted by giant
it costs money. buy a subscription from www.stratfor.com
it's probably the only place you are going to get accurate up to the minute reports of progress, as well as political, situational and strategic analysis
Just because you have to pay to read it does not make it fair and accurate. And just because you agree with it does not make it so either.
Oh, and on your second post about this site, I do not think that I would trust what a Russian operative has to say about this war. They are not exactly all happy about us being there.
flick
Originally posted by NoahJ
Just because you have to pay to read it does not make it fair and accurate.
No one said it does
And just because you agree with it does not make it so either.
I actually don't agree with the political views of stratfor's directors
Oh, and on your second post about this site, I do not think that I would trust what a Russian operative has to say about this war.
They point out in another article on Basra that their Russian and Iranian sources means high government officials and a slew of stratfor Russian and Iranian analysts. Mind you, stratfor's russian and iranaian analysts were the US government's russian and iranian analysts.
You might want to find out what stratfor is. Then it would be good to find out what www.us-iraqwar.com is. Then hopefully you can stop your frieght train of erroneous assumptions.
This site http://www.iraqbodycount.org is a conservative estimate (relies on western media reports). Maybe 25000 Iraqis dead would be an accurate estimate in a few weeks, (specially if the US uses tactical nuclear weapons).
To claim that a war is going less well than it really is would be a military first..and to what end? Military operations never go exactly to plan and reports indicate problems.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27208744.htm
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=30439
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=2460160
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...6,00050004.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...922671,00.html
Reason for war...weapons of mass destruction?
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/...ons/index.html
Where are those bio/chem weapons?
Today, in disgust, I unsubscribed to my cable TV service and replaced it with satellite DirecTV. The package includes WorldLink TV. Does anyone here get this service? The "Mosaic" News on WorldLink delivers a comprehensive range of news reports from all over the world, including live television out of Baghdad and the Middle East. The video footage coming out of Iraq is horrifying, showing that war is not a bunch of talking heads, smoothly orchestrated soundbites, retired cigar chomping generals and a fireworks display to swill Bud Lite to and whoop it up.
War is so horrific...terrible things are being done by both sides. Captured US and UK troops have have been executed summarily by the Iraqi army. Also, Iraqi troops, apparently surrendering, often start shooting at coalition troops. Iraqi troops bearing white flags have been shot dead and civilians have been kidnapped. Baghdad University is in ruins, as well as its museums and cultural sites.
The US media is a sick joke, a propaganda machine, nothing more than baby formula. Why do they think we all need nannying, or can't handle real war footage??
We know that our old bud Saddam is a horror-story, but if the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated so badly, why are all the uncensored reports from numerous non-US media stations showing angry, furious people cursing and denouncing the US and the UK?
Here's an imaginary scene for anyone living in "Anywheresville", surburban US, relaxing with the kids at home on with the tranquil afternoon: Suddenly the calm is shattered by a huge blast casued by an an Iraqi bomb, the street is leveled, houses are on fire, every window for 10 blocks around is shattered and there's bodies, blood and dismembered limbs lying in the street, deafened people wandering around in shock. If you were affected like this, who amongst us wouldn't want bloody revenge? Innocent New Yorkers got to know the horrors of war a year and a half ago, because some fundamentalist religious madman was raging about something that happened 10 years previously. One thing I heard a seasoned commentator say the other day..and that is "we Americans in our world of soundbites and perpetual distraction tend to forget very quickly. In comparison, people in middle eastern nations do not". If the furious mood of the Iraqi people (as well as in many other Arab states) is indicative, Orange and Red alerts will be the colors of the future.
I know most of you folk in here are guys, and males (tend to) be attracted to war (I've seen the jingosim at UCLA frat parties.."bomb the ragheads", "kill all muslims", etc....truly disgusting). Being against this war is not "Anti Anerica", or "unAmerican" etc . I am scared what the next decade might bring as a result of being too proud and ego-driven to use our words. 80% of the world is now mad as hell at us after all the good will following 9-11. How utterly sad, what a waste.