Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 26

QUOTE

Yes, we have different views about the subject, you being an American and I seeing the whole picture from another perspective

Totally straightforward comment. I don't see any insult at all. The key word here is 'perspective' and there are always many different perspectives to an issue. The usual glass half full or half empty example. Outside of America the Iraq situation is probably seen in a rather different light than from the inside of the US.

Anyway, Bush is now going on full assault in the media to put a more positive spin to the whole Iraqi situation. He has too since election is coming round the corner.

Iraq War Post

QUOTE

Totally straightforward comment. I don't see any insult at all.

Agreed. It is funny how people use a few words to gripe about other inward feelings.

Now on to the matter at hand. A new theme has come up in this war... it is the fault of the media for over doing the negatives of Iraq or is it really how it is?

Gerry Holmes and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices Washington, D.C.

President Bush's chief arms inspector, David Kay, released a preliminary report recently that showed his team had not found the weapons of mass destruction that the president presented to the nation as the main reason for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. That was reason number one and although Kaye warns that all the work is not complete, not one weapon has been found. The second reason to go to war was that Al-Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein and the threat of terrorism, an imminent threat to the U.S., was one of the main reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The final reason was that Saddam Hussein had to go. Plain and simple. Regime change was imperative, he was a dangerous despot who had gassed his own people and was looking for ways to harm the United States after his humiliating defeat after he invaded Kuwait in 1990. Fixing schools, restoring electricity and getting consumer goods into Iraq was never one of the main reasons for invading Iraq. But that was the president's message as he sat down with regional reporters around the country. Things are going well with the reconstruction of Iraq but the media aren't covering those events, they just report the negative: American soldiers being attacked and killed nearly everyday.

It's not the first time an American president has decided to go directly to the people using his own filter to promote what he feels is not getting coverage. There are many positive things going on in Iraq and these events are getting coverage. In print, broadcast and even on the Internet, reporting has been done on the more positive aspects of various reconstruction projects. Nightline correspondent John Donvan did a series of reports on the positive developments in Iraq a few weeks ago. In this day and age of instant news fueled by the 24-hour news race, there may seem to be more coverage on the negative, but that's what breaking news outlets do. On the other hand the president could have a point.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

QUOTE

Totally straightforward comment. I don't see any insult at all.

Thanks Fireduck

QUOTE

Now on to the matter at hand. A new theme has come up in this war... it is the fault of the media for over doing the negatives of Iraq or is it really how it is?

Fault? I will not say so. The media is doing their job, they're writting and broadcasting what it sells. Good news never sell, unless it is extremely good. Regards to the Iraq situation particularly I would say that there are more negatives things going on than positive ones, that's why the Media focus so much on them.

Page 26 Iraq War Post

That David Kay report is a fine example of 'perspectives'. When the report was put out, the anti-war side said, "see, we told you so. You should have given more time to the UN inspectors then."
But the Bush administration saw it differently, " See, we told you Saddam was a threat .... he had ambitions of developing WMD. We were right in attacking Iraq". Same report. Of cos, I am paraphrasing there but basically the two sides read the same report from different angles.

Iraq War Post

Okay, lets 'review' where we are at:

* Saddam is still missing.

* No one wants to help the US/UK militarily anymore, certainly not economically with Iraq

* The US is going to pay the costs of reconstruction, but Iraq has the pay back the costs of the US bombings on their infrastructure.

* Let's look at this statement from Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff Nightline Offices Washington, D.C.;
"I think some things are easier to take if you don't know what's coming. When Ted and I were embedded with the 3rd Infantry Division for the war with Iraq, we really didn't know what we were getting into. Once in, you can't turn back. You just deal with what comes. But then we got to go home, and perhaps more important, we got to decide when we went home. If you had asked me to go back a couple of weeks later, it would have been much tougher to go. Why? Because I would know what was coming. Sometimes it's easier to just be surprised. Which is a long way of getting to our show for tonight. Soldiers serving in Iraq, or at least some of them, are being given the opportunity to come home for two weeks. It's called R and R, rest and recuperation, or recreation, or recovery. But you get the idea. "

* Soldiers die each day and plots again US soldiers / US citizens seem to be on an increase

* Current Clerics are seeking for power and promise to get rid of any presiding governing body established by the US

How do you impose 'your standards' on a people that does not want to be governed by your 'standards'? So where are we at? Are things moving forward? Is this just some stumbling blocks? Was the war worth it?

Post War Iraq

QUOTE

How do you impose 'your standards' on a people that does not want to be governed by your 'standards'? So where are we at? Are things moving forward? Is this just some stumbling blocks? Was the war worth it?

But that's the key of the whole issue JB. Most people see it as the Iraqi people do not want to be govern by the USA but the USA sees it as a minority of the population of Iraq. But having the war finished such a long time ago and having US soldiers killed every day...what can I say

Post War Iraq - Page 26

This Iraq issue .... sometimes I wonder why, just why did it happen. No doubt Saddam is or was a bad dude. Didn't the CIA covertly topple dictators in the past? In Iraq's case, that either was not the option or Saddam was too powerful to be covertly toppled or assasinated. So, what did the rest of the 'free world' did? They strangle the country and the Iraqi people via the debilitating sanctions. Or have people forgotten?

And as if that wasn't enough, the US/UK launched that devastating attack on it. Sure it was supposed to be a smart war, only buildings, installations, etc. were to be destroyed even when they used the Mother-Of-All-Bombs (MOAB) during the war. Ok, statistically, maybe, just maybe, the number of human lives lost were small relative to other conflicts BUT the subsequent sufferings of the living!!???

What I want to know is how was the situation in Iraq before the sanctions were imposed. Iraq was not some backwater wasteland before this. I believe the cities there were very modern and well infrastructured then but the sanctions sure hurt a lot of the services, especially the medical and food supplies.

Now I hear of how the US is trying to reconstruct Iraq and to bring all the wonderful wonderful things to the Iraqi people. I just don't get it. Come on, they were not poor to begin with. Even if Saddam was corrupted like ...., he still provided all the necessities. It was the US/UK who destroyed a swath of the country in the first place and brought upon the common Iraqis all these sufferings.

It's like I don't like the layout of my neighbor's house so I am going in to 'help' him renovate. I totally flatten it out and then bring some materials to start to RECONSTRUCT and then say, "hey, see I am building a bathroom here, and the bedrooms over there, all these wonderful things for you" as if he didn't have any of that in the first place!

Of course, I can understand the tough situation that the US find themselves in now with all that sabotages, etc. But don't glorify the rebuilding process as if you are doing the Iraqis a huge favor. Changing the govt system, yes. But like I said, there are probably better ways to do that than to go in and flatten the country in the first place.

Just my take for today.  ;)

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 26

A strategic pattern to Iraqi strikes
Suicide bombers hit soft targets to demoralize both foreigners and
locals. By Dan Murphy
https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1028/p01s04-woiq.html
[hr]
I wonder, could it be that Saddam is underground? I don't mean it as a term for hiding, but literally. Think about it. Wasn't one of the things they were famous for was large underground tunnels and bunkers? Surely there must be a secret one somewhere? Just a thought.

Fireduck said

QUOTE

It's like I don't like the layout of my neighbor's house so I am going in to 'help' him renovate. I totally flatten it out and then bring some materials to start to RECONSTRUCT and then say, "hey, see I am building a bathroom here, and the bedrooms over there, all these wonderful things for you" as if he didn't have any of that in the first place!

Funny, and true, but you know, the US or should I say, Bush does not see it that way. The way they see it is more like this....

'You have an abuser in your home so to get him out we need to burn down your house. This will force him to move and then we could always rebuild it back, and by the way, there is no other way because it is better to burn down your house than to have a nice home with an abuser inside.'

But like you said Nighthawk... I wonder why they never tried to take him out, his sons too. I have never heard any of the news agencies express that as an option.