Progress in Iraq?

Joined
10 June 2003
Messages
724
Location
New York
Well, the Pentagon released its yearly "strategic communications" report summarizing the progress made in Iraq and in the War on Terror:

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

Here are some highlights:

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

Rather than supporting tyranny, most Muslim want to overthrow tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia. “The US finds itself in the strategically awkward – and potentially dangerous – situation of being the long-standing prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the US, these regimes could not survive,” the report says.

“Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism.”


Sounds like we are in deep doo-doo. :frown:
 
Personally, I don't see how a rational person could think that the war in Iraq was a good move and I don't see how a rational person can accept the Bush administration's reasons for rushing into war.

It just blows my mind that people can support a President who appears to have just an average level of intelligence.

End of rant.
 
NsXMas said:
May our troops come home safely soon.

Speaking as someone from the Middle East

I hope your troops do come home safely. I also hope you get a better presidential line up for your country’s future.
 
I also hope you get a better presidential line up for your country’s future.

:biggrin:

Jeb Bush in 2008... And he's the smart one!
 
oh no......

Ok... time for a poll: i bet my pink slip this thread will end up digressing into another heated Iraq anti-war political debate with at least 50 posts. Anyone for 100 posts? :D
 
The French newspaper wasn't convincing me :D but the Washington Post link did a little to clear up why it wasn't bigger news. I still think if the situation was as bad as the first post made it seem it would be MUCH bigger news, no?

Oh well.
 
dave22 said:
I still think if the situation was as bad as the first post made it seem it would be MUCH bigger news, no?

My post was not a certain reporter's opinion of things in Iraq. It was straight quotes from a report that the Pentagon experts released of their opinion of things in Iraq. Reading that report would give you a clear understanding of the differences between what they say and what they actually think behind closed doors.

Here are a couple other recent articles on the status of things over there:

You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is -- In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead

The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casualties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.


US military blamed for media deaths in Iraq

The global managing editor of news provider Reuters says the US military is entirely to blame for the deaths of three of its employees in Iraq since the start of the war there in March 2003.

"All of them were killed by the American army," Reuters chief David Schlesinger told reporters


What the hell are we doing over there??

BTW, when you read articles, no matter what the source, ignore the commentary or opinion given by the author. Read articles for the facts only. That goes for these two articles as well as the one posted above. You will notice that in the few quotes I posted above, I only included the straight quotes from the report, not the author's comments. Read the facts and make your own conclusions and opinions.
 
dave22 said:
The French newspaper wasn't convincing me :D but the Washington Post link did a little to clear up why it wasn't bigger news. I still think if the situation was as bad as the first post made it seem it would be MUCH bigger news, no?

Oh well.
I just read the article from the Washington Post, and I don't understand your statement. Can you please point out which part clarifies why this wasn't bigger news?

Also, I'm confused about the "French newspaper" statement. If you are referring to the International Herald Tribune, even though it is published in France, it is geared towards Americans living in Europe, and is usually a compilation of articles from major newspapers (like this article, which came from the NY Times) and other news sources (like AP).
 
Re: oh no......

NeoNSX said:
Ok... time for a poll: i bet my pink slip this thread will end up digressing into another heated Iraq anti-war political debate with at least 50 posts. Anyone for 100 posts? :D
I'm sorry to say, I think you are correct. Maybe we can link this thread to the September 11th Conspiracy thread a while back. Keep it in the family. :biggrin:
 
nkb said:
If you are referring to the International Herald Tribune, even though it is published in France, it is geared towards Americans living in Europe, and is usually a compilation of articles from major newspapers (like this article, which came from the NY Times) and other news sources (like AP).

From what I've seen in the various political threads in this forum, many of the "news sources" criticized as being "questionable" are actually not news sources but are blogs. truthout.org is a perfect example of such a site. truthout.org does not report anything. They simply give links to other reputable news sources. Same with whatreallyhappened.com and many others like this. Some of you just do not like the collection of articles they choose to link to, so you call them questionable. But they do not actually have any content of their own.

For example, a look at whatreallyhappened.com today yields links to artciles from the following:

Village Voice
The Daily Star (Lebanese newspaper)
Jewish Times
American Free Press
USA Today
Washington Post
Haaretz (Israeli newspaper)
New York Times
Sun-Sentinel (Florida newspaper)
Seattle Times
The Guardian
Gulf Daily News
Chicago Sun Times
Aljazeera
Yahoo! News

Wow....such a list of questionable sources! :eek:

Better tune into the fair and balanced Fox News Channel so you don't become brainwashed by all these questionable news sources. :tongue:
 
Eric5273 said:
Wow....such a list of questionable sources! :eek:

Better tune into the fair and balanced Fox News Channel so you don't become brainwashed by all these questionable news sources. :tongue:
Eric, I'm not sure if you're dinging me by using my post.

In case you were, I was just trying to point out that the IHT is not a French paper, but more of a compilation of respected news sources, and therefore does not have any "implied" bias against the US. I was not questioning the impartiality of the sources that were posted.
 
Just wondering, but do any of you have any friends/family in the Military who have been shot and/or killed? A few of my friends have been killed in this Project Iraqi Freedom.
 
nkb said:
Here is a link for the entire report, in case anyone is interested.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

Same old crap...they always post these things in PDF format. That way you cannot do a text search through the report to locate information. Only those who have the time to read the entire 100+ page report will actually find the interesting parts. Or those who read excerps in the few "questionable" news sources that actually report on the subject.
 
SCS2k said:
Another "questionable" news source:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/07/iraq.cia.reut/index.html

Is it CNN that is questionable, the CIA or the U.S. government as a whole?

Obviously CNN is questionable. If they were a good non-questionable news source, then they would report what president Bush said and that would be the end of the discussion on the subject. :tongue:

On a serious note, I just thought I would point out that this CNN article has no relation to the DOD report cited above. This article discusses a different report released by the CIA. Apparently both reports are "questionable" as they both seem to agree that we are in deep doo-doo over there.
 
Back
Top