Drum_corps912004
New member
- Joined
- May 6, 2005
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
I guess my question is, why doesn't the media ever report something good that has happend. For once.
mak[ing] matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to describe the situation have been contaminated by the increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor the idea of war that they would banish it from human discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances, military power can be used in support of a good cause. But whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people.
...
Since my first encounter with Iraq almost 40 years ago, I have relied on several broad measures of social and economic health to assess the countrys condition. Through good times and bad, these signs have proved remarkably accurateas accurate, that is, as is possible in human affairs. For some time now, all have been pointing in an unequivocally positive direction.
The first sign is refugees. When things have been truly desperate in Iraq in 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1990, long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape. In 1973, for example, when Saddam Hussein decided to expel all those whose ancestors had not been Ottoman citizens before Iraqs creation as a state, some 1.2 million Iraqis left their homes in the space of just six weeks. This was not the temporary exile of a small group of middle-class professionals and intellectuals, which is a common enough phenomenon in most Arab countries. Rather, it was a departure en masse, affecting people both in small villages and in big cities, and it was a scene regularly repeated under Saddam Hussein.
Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television sets and we can be sure that we would be seeing it if it were there to be shown. To the contrary, Iraqis, far from fleeing, have been returning home. By the end of 2005, in the most conservative estimate, the number of returnees topped the 1.2-million mark. Many of the camps set up for fleeing Iraqis in Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia since 1959 have now closed down. The oldest such center, at Ashrafiayh in southwest Iran, was formally shut when its last Iraqi guests returned home in 2004.
A second dependable sign likewise concerns human movement, but of a different kind. This is the flow of religious pilgrims to the Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Whenever things start to go badly in Iraq, this stream is reduced to a trickle and then it dries up completely. From 1991 (when Saddam Hussein massacred Shiites involved in a revolt against him) to 2003, there were scarcely any pilgrims to these cities. Since Saddams fall, they have been flooded with visitors. In 2005, the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina.
Over 3,000 Iraqi clerics have also returned from exile, and Shiite seminaries, which just a few years ago held no more than a few dozen pupils, now boast over 15,000 from 40 different countries. This is because Najaf, the oldest center of Shiite scholarship, is once again able to offer an alternative to Qom, the Iranian holy city where a radical and highly politicized version of Shiism is taught. Those wishing to pursue the study of more traditional and quietist forms of Shiism now go to Iraq where, unlike in Iran, the seminaries are not controlled by the government and its secret police.
A third sign, this one of the hard economic variety, is the value of the Iraqi dinar, especially as compared with the regions other major currencies. In the final years of Saddam Husseins rule, the Iraqi dinar was in free fall; after 1995, it was no longer even traded in Iran and Kuwait. By contrast, the new dinar, introduced early in 2004, is doing well against both the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial, having risen by 17 percent against the former and by 23 percent against the latter. Although it is still impossible to fix its value against a basket of international currencies, the new Iraqi dinar has done well against the U.S. dollar, increasing in value by almost 18 percent between August 2004 and August 2005. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and millions of Iranians and Kuwaitis, now treat it as a safe and solid medium of exchange
My fourth time-tested sign is the level of activity by small and medium-sized businesses. In the past, whenever things have gone downhill in Iraq, large numbers of such enterprises have simply closed down, with the countrys most capable entrepreneurs decamping to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Iran, and even Europe and North America. Since liberation, however, Iraq has witnessed a private-sector boom, especially among small and medium-sized businesses.
oldreliable67 said:PeteEu,
I'm partially repeating something from another thread, but here is another view anyway...
Here are a couple of snippets of an opinion by an informed observer, Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper, the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe.
It is quite thoughtful, read the whole thing, here.
faithful_servant said:WOW!! Great post!!!
Here's some stuff that you might be interested in.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1840
http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html
http://www.savethecolors.com/
http://www.blackanthem.com/
oldreliable67 said:PeteEu,
I'm partially repeating something from another thread, but here is another view anyway...
Here are a couple of snippets of an opinion by an informed observer, Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper, the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe.
It is quite thoughtful, read the whole thing, here.
BigDog said:It's still not accurate. PeteEU gave a very good run down. Good news and the media won't fix a single problem there. This desire to be praised escapes me, but there are too many problems for any amount of "good news" to make a major difference in the outcome.
oldreliable67 said:And exactly how is it not accurate?
PeteEU did give a good run-down - but PeteEUs view is a one way street. Amir Teheri is a long-time observer of the ME whose qualifications as an observer strike me as considerably stronger than PeteEU's. That doesn't mean that PeteEU is 100% wrong or that Teheri is 100% right. It does mean that with both, one gets at the very least a more balanced view.
Your right: "good news and the media won't fix a single problem there." But there is, IMO, a need to be realistic and more accurate about the situation. A lot more pragmatism from both the Iraq doubters/critics and the Bushies would be helpful for everyone.
The "news" alone, good or bad, won't determine the outcome. But more accurate representations and information would keep all better informed and facilitate better decision-making.
It is not a "desire to be praised"; it is a desire for pragmatism and accuracy. To look only at the good things and ignore the bad is as undesirable as looking only at the bad and ignoring the good.
BigDog said:I showed you in the other thread he is inaccurate.
Good news and the media won't fix a single problem there. This desire to be praised escapes me, but there are too many problems for any amount of "good news" to make a major difference in the outcome.
ProudAmerican said:its not about "good news making a difference in the outcome"
its about ACCURATELY REPORTING WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON.
oldreliable67 said:PeteEu,
I'm partially repeating something from another thread, but here is another view anyway...
Here are a couple of snippets of an opinion by an informed observer, Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper, the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe.
It is quite thoughtful, read the whole thing, here.
PeteEU said:as for his experiences and mine.. I have lived in the region for 15 years and do know a bit about the area,
It's not a desire to be praised, it's WAR. Let me give you an analogy:BigDog said:It's still not accurate. PeteEU gave a very good run down. Good news and the media won't fix a single problem there. This desire to be praised escapes me, but there are too many problems for any amount of "good news" to make a major difference in the outcome.
Drum_corps912004 said:I guess my question is, why doesn't the media ever report something good that has happend. For once.
faithful_servant said:It's not a desire to be praised, it's WAR. Let me give you an analogy:
You and another person are competing for the same position at your place of employment. You are committed to you employer and to doing what is best for him and to treating the people in your charge fairly. The other guy is not committed and only wants the position because it gives him the authority push around some people he doesn't like, even though they are good employees and fully committed to well being of the company. If he gets the job, these people will be mistreated and the company will suffer. Now, you don't like to blow your own horn, but if you don't, the other guy gets the job and your company and the employees will suffer.
This is the scenario that is playing out in Iraq. There is a choice between two groups and the one that is committed to Iraq's peaceful and progressive future gets little good press and the one that is attempting to re-establish a terrorocrasy is getting vast amounts of press, some bad, some sympathetic and some that is actually supportive. It's not about being praised, it's about making sure that evil men do not rule Iraq once again. It's about people who are opposed to what we are doing wanting to see us fail, even if it means that the rape rooms are re-opened and the poor people of Iraq go back to a medievel era quality of life.
Do you think that one the two employees in my analogy is us?? Wrongo boyo. The two employees are the Shias and Sunnis, one is dedicated to a progressive, postivie nation, the other is committed to a return to a gov't by terror.BigDog said:This is not at all like that. If I do a job and it is a failure, talking on the positive will not make it a success. In fact, trying to pretend it is will only secure my doom.
The news has a huge impact on who rules in Iraq. Public perception in Iraq and in the int'l community is critical. These terror attacks are not desiigned to create fear within the Iraqi people, they are designed to create a media buzz. The Iraqi people have already made it clear that they are not going to be intimidated as long as they have a way of countering the attackers. This is done by use of the Coalition forces and the rising IA and IP forces. But, if we leave, then the anti-Iraqi forces (those killing Iraqis on a daily basis for the express purpose of creating fear and returning Iraq to it's Baathist roots) will start taking over Iraq once again by use of fear. This is the goal of the terror attacks: to create a perception that we can't help the Iraqi people, so we might as well leave. The media is THE key player in this. They are terrorism's greatest ally. Take some time to research 4th generation warfare. See what the reality of the enemy we fight is and what thier primary weapons and tactics are.And the news has nothing to do with who rules in Iraq, which is a real problem if anyone thinks they do. Securing the country will determine that, not the news.
faithful_servant said:Do you think that one the two employees in my analogy is us?? Wrongo boyo. The two employees are the Shias and Sunnis, one is dedicated to a progressive, postivie nation, the other is committed to a return to a gov't by terror.
The news has a huge impact on who rules in Iraq. Public perception in Iraq and in the int'l community is critical. These terror attacks are not desiigned to create fear within the Iraqi people, they are designed to create a media buzz. The Iraqi people have already made it clear that they are not going to be intimidated as long as they have a way of countering the attackers. This is done by use of the Coalition forces and the rising IA and IP forces. But, if we leave, then the anti-Iraqi forces (those killing Iraqis on a daily basis for the express purpose of creating fear and returning Iraq to it's Baathist roots) will start taking over Iraq once again by use of fear. This is the goal of the terror attacks: to create a perception that we can't help the Iraqi people, so we might as well leave. The media is THE key player in this. They are terrorism's greatest ally. Take some time to research 4th generation warfare. See what the reality of the enemy we fight is and what thier primary weapons and tactics are.
BigDog said:Perception must be build with honesty, or it is useless. People see through deception. And frankly, like it or not, the Iraqi people know the security is failing regardless of what the media reports, and that is the point.
However, Bush is there greatest ally. He gave them the opportunity to bled and hurt us by being reckless and foolish. Read Scheuer. He has made one error after another, and you can't hide that with propaganda. The media is world wide and cannot be controlled completely by any government, so if you want to win such a fight, you have to act like you understand the media is there reporting. Knowing this, you don't do evil, unethical things. It really is that simple.
Secure the country. Then do good things in safety. If you are going to kill and torture, as Iraqis are doing (BTW, the Shia are killing more people than anyone), then the news will not be good. There is no way around that.
faithful_servant said:How does it feel to be a casualty of war? You've been targetted and hit by the terorists using 4th gen. tactics. By their creation of a false impression of what we are doing in Iraq, you have been turned into an ally of the terrorists. Yeah, I know you don't want to believe it, but when you attack the enemies of the terrorists, you are doing exactly what they want.
BigDog said:This is the kind of response someone with a weak argument makes. Such Ad homien attacks do you an injustice. Surely you can do better.
The hearts and minds of the ME are being fought for and you can't win them with propaganda, not false proaganda any way. You have to secure the country and actually do something that matters more than the death and distruction they are facing now. Without security, their minds cannot be won.
The major error was being unethical and invading in the first place. That act alone put us behind the eight ball. But we have compounded that error with many, many errors since, nearly all of which can be traced back to poor leadership.
And you simply can't pass the buck to the media or anyone else.
The major error was being unethical and invading in the first place.
ProudAmerican said:tell us at what point it would have become ethical? how many years and resolutions of defiance? how many dead Kurds. how many mass graves, rape rooms, and people thrown from buildings to their deaths?
I submit the major error would have been to wait untill AFTER Iraq had proven itself a threat.....as we did in Afghanistan with the taliban and al queda.
I submit had we done something about that problem before hand, we might not have lost 3000 innocent civilians.
It really comes down to one thing. to we want to be pro-active, or reactive in this war on terror.
I can give you the names of 3000 dead people that wish we would have been pro-active.
do we know for SURE we could have prevented 9-11? of course not. but one thing we do know for an absolute FACT. Not being pro-active damn sure didnt help things any.
Since Saddam had nothing to with 9/11, your proclimation means little
The fact that anyone would say something so wrong is testement to the wrong headed thinking going on regarding this subject.
absolutely. had the FBI and CIA communicated better, they could have known before hand that 9-11 was a possibility, and done something to prevent it. you know, they could have been PRO ACTIVE. thanks for making my point for me.The 9/11 commission was clear that the only thing that might have prevented 9/11 was the FBI and the CIA talking to each other.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?