OT. One year ago

One year ago to this day a brash rec.scuban (a.k.a. Popeye) posted the
following:
"... 1 year from now, incontravertable (sic) evidence that WMD are, or
were in Irag post 9/11..."
Well a year has come and passed and even the Bush administration has
now officially acknowledged that the search for WMDs in Iraq is over.
Chief inspector Charles Duelfer reported last October that he could
find no evidence of weapons stockpiles or active programs.
Oh dear, does this mean that the main reason put forward to go to war
against Iraq is wrong?
Rather embarrassing isn't it?

"John R. Macdonald" <scubajohn@remove.claranet.fr> wrote in message
news:db0pu0tp2q48ub1rk6833ggvauic680dvq@4ax.com...
> One year ago to this day a brash rec.scuban (a.k.a. Popeye) posted the
> following:
> "... 1 year from now, incontravertable (sic) evidence that WMD are, or
> were in Irag post 9/11..."
> Well a year has come and passed and even the Bush administration has
> now officially acknowledged that the search for WMDs in Iraq is over.
> Chief inspector Charles Duelfer reported last October that he could
> find no evidence of weapons stockpiles or active programs.
> Oh dear, does this mean that the main reason put forward to go to war
> against Iraq is wrong?
> Rather embarrassing isn't it?
>
>
>

Not really, they will just rationalization another reason.

Beliefs are always stronger than facts.

"John R. Macdonald" wrote ...
> Rather embarrassing isn't it?

Nawh, it got all the American haters in one area where we could deal with
them more effectively...

"John R. Macdonald" <scubajohn@remove.claranet.fr> wrote in message
news:db0pu0tp2q48ub1rk6833ggvauic680dvq@4ax.com...
> One year ago to this day a brash rec.scuban (a.k.a. Popeye) posted the
> following:
> "... 1 year from now, incontravertable (sic) evidence that WMD are, or
> were in Irag post 9/11..."
> Well a year has come and passed and even the Bush administration has
> now officially acknowledged that the search for WMDs in Iraq is over.
> Chief inspector Charles Duelfer reported last October that he could
> find no evidence of weapons stockpiles or active programs.
> Oh dear, does this mean that the main reason put forward to go to war
> against Iraq is wrong?
> Rather embarrassing isn't it?
>


You are wasting your time, dude. Popeye is no longer here. He is now in
Iraq himself, working as a truck driver. You've got to give the guy credit:
he stands behind what he believes in.

"John R. Macdonald" <scubajohn@remove.claranet.fr> wrote in message
news:db0pu0tp2q48ub1rk6833ggvauic680dvq@4ax.com...
> One year ago to this day a brash rec.scuban (a.k.a. Popeye) posted the
> following:
> "... 1 year from now, incontravertable (sic) evidence that WMD are, or
> were in Irag post 9/11..."
> Well a year has come and passed and even the Bush administration has
> now officially acknowledged that the search for WMDs in Iraq is over.
> Chief inspector Charles Duelfer reported last October that he could
> find no evidence of weapons stockpiles or active programs.

IIRC, though, they did find evidence that he was just waiting for sanctions
to be lifted so that the programs could be restarted.

> Oh dear, does this mean that the main reason put forward to go to war
> against Iraq is wrong?
> Rather embarrassing isn't it?

Nah. I still think Saddam being out of power is a good thing. Kind of like
if Hitler had been stopped after he re-occupied the Rhineland.

Dennis
>
>
>

"John R. Macdonald" <scubajohn@remove.claranet.fr> wrote in message
news:db0pu0tp2q48ub1rk6833ggvauic680dvq@4ax.com...
> One year ago to this day a brash rec.scuban (a.k.a. Popeye) posted the
> following:
> "... 1 year from now, incontravertable (sic) evidence that WMD are, or
> were in Irag post 9/11..."

Hyperbole. Nostradamus died July 2, 1566; and, as far as we know, has not
be reincarnated.

Dennis (Icarus) wrote:

>
> Nah. I still think Saddam being out of power is a good thing. Kind of
like
> if Hitler had been stopped after he re-occupied the Rhineland.
>
> Dennis
Or like if Bush had been prosecuted when he went AWOL from his unit.

> Or like if Bush had been prosecuted when he went AWOL from his unit.

He wasnt prosecuted, because he wasnt AWOL. Or dont you read the news?

But Kerry is quilty of treason, will do for you to hang your psychosis
on?

Gotta admit, it has been real nice around here since you lost the
election and went AWOL.

Get a weekend furlough?

Rudy Benner wrote:

> Not really, they will just rationalization another reason.
>
> Beliefs are always stronger than facts.

Maybe in your little corner of the lefty world;



Aiding and Abetting the Enemy: the Media in Iraq
By LTC Tim Ryan, CO, 2/12 Cav, 1st Cav Div

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers
headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or
"More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"?
Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really
represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined
all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as
an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the
headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and
Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this
statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True -- yes,
accurate -- yes, but in context with the greater good taking place --
no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks
back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump
off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq
right now.

I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story
from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq.
Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the
events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only
the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about
the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their
training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has
distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is
a further erosion of international public support for the United
States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve
and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their
incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the
media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but
not without ups and downs. War is a terrible thing and terrible things
happen during wars, even when you are winning. In war, as in any
contest of wills with capable opponents, things do not always go as
planned; the guys with the white hats don't always come out on top in
each engagement. That doesn't mean you are losing. Sure, there are
some high profile and very spectacular enemy attacks taking place in
Iraq these days, but the great majority of what is happening in Iraq is
positive. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad,
the media highlight mostly the negative aspects of the event? The
journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq,
but why only when it's American blood?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an
absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in
scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the
Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In
both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched
enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah,
the enemy death toll has already exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing.
Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as
there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted
its focus to other parts of the country. Just yesterday, a major news
agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and
"Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did
the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops
killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of
course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress
these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the
insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has
become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete
picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale
and balance. From where I sit in my command post at Camp Fallujah,
Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite
well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are
taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the
distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five
hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets in the city. The occasional
tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or
Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass
line for a symphony of destruction. Right now, as elements from all
four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent
forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former stronghold is
more peaceful than it has been for more than a year. The number of
attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80%
from late October -- before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in
this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final
eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it
always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic
stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds
a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead
with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy
Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far
more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead,
headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these
ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to
their actions? What did the media not show or tell us about Margaret
Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was
kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled in streets of
Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to
emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers
at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge
stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these
protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah
and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete
story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were
repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to
use lethal force and who now is being tried in the world press. Is
this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah?
No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each
hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how
the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a
counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al
Jazeera isn't showing the film of the CARE worker, but is showing the
clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al
Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where
they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet,
you'll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home
page. Very interesting.

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of
incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last
August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous
stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred
city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the
hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of
anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism
that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the
Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis
who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes
and their Muslim way of life.

Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth. What noticeably
was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi
Militia -- Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy
bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city
council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or
the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic
Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their
"crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two
hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the
body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the
world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms
rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from
the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's
"political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen
or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome
of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had
somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda
machine.

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad
nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no
justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced
reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were
representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly
negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the
U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who
were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend
the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of
course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities happened.
It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote
someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance -- they never
see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the
media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the
Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded
bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos
of the naked human pyramid over and over?

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media
the other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some
outfits are better than others, the Army and other military
organizations today understand the importance of getting out the story
-- the whole story -- and trains leaders to talk to the press. There is
a saying about media and the military that goes: "The only way the
media is going to tell a good story is if you give them one to tell."
This doesn't always work as planned. Recently, when a Coalition
spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah
operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and
then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a
"special report" in which the cable network accused the military of
lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation.
The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public
affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an
operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of
Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the
main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical
"feints" designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main
attack, then planned to take place weeks later.

Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't
start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used
them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want
answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The
reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition,
CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into
what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It
is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the
press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters
would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception
plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.

CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and
other cases. Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact
that the enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of
envy. You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqarwi has his
own version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses
him to great effect. Each time Zarquari's group executes a terrorist
act such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement
ready to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager
reporters take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as
they got it.

Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just
what the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a
victory for them. Those who have read the ancient Chinese military
theorist and army general Sun Tsu will recall the philosophy of "Kill
one, scare ten thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of
terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior
of the masses. The media allows the terrorist to use relatively small
but spectacular events that directly affect very few, and spread them
around the world to scare millions. What about the thousands of things
that go right every day and are never reported? Complete a
multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to cover it, but
let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each headline,
the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This method
of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support while
fueling the enemy's cause.

I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective
reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they
report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It
appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the
relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown
Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because
terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and
others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their
quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities
and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their
view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their
unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A
car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few
mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to
the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to
leave their hotel rooms -- how convenient.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in
Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and
a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers
dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced
reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the
balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city
and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham
City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a
transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major
events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event
would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast.
These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the
masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is
manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq
are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of
whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking
heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about
how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only
occasionally leave Manhattan.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give
us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It
seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their
unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling
Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire;
Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at
Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to
make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in
the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape
world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success
splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only
emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and
followers.
So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"?
The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual
accounts have little or no experience or education in
counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their
assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or
not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who
among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at
this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances
of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these
"experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have
they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View
on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military
guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the
Iraq insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's
campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of
similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted
the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on
insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they
seen any of Sun Zsu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to
start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on
this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of
this or any other campaign's progress.

Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone
who probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in
Iraq? It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that
some people are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's
view on how we should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose
profession it is to know how these things should go. I play the guitar,
but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be
subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's
a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an
expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is
first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech,
but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon
could have about as much credibility as "The Batchelor" has for showing
us truly loving couples.

Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war
is taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have
only two of the following three qualities when developing a product --
cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it
won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap,
but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and
we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of
conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully
so. Creating a democracy in Iraq not only will require a change in the
political system, but the economic system as well. Study of examples of
similar socio-economic changes that took place in countries like Chile,
Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and other countries with oppressive Socialist
dictatorships shows that it took seven to ten years to move those
countries to where they are now. There are many lessons to be learned
from these transformations, the most important of which is that change
doesn't come easily, even without an insurgency going on. Maybe the
experts should take a look at all of the work that has gone into
stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10 years. We are just at
the eighteen-month mark in Iraq, a place far more oppressive than
Bosnia ever was. If previous examples are any comparison, there will be
no quick solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an analyst
who has done his or her homework.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to
the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest
influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which
a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions,
and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good
news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every
day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest
bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in
Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news.
People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost
on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way?
These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good
going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are
looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his
resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad
that suffers in the end.

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of
the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously
think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint
such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much
is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause
right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so
steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we
achieve it.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/0..._and_abbe.html

http://pao.hood.army.mil/1CD_2-12Cav/ltcb.htm

http://www.blackfive.net/.shared/ima...d/ltc_ryan.JPG

<keysclub@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1106056024.918179.59490@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Dennis (Icarus) wrote:
>
> >
> > Nah. I still think Saddam being out of power is a good thing. Kind of
> like
> > if Hitler had been stopped after he re-occupied the Rhineland.
> >
> > Dennis
> Or like if Bush had been prosecuted when he went AWOL from his unit.
>

Charlie! Good to see you. How'd the treatments work out?
Recovered from Kerry's loss?

BTW, you've still not proven Bush was AWOL.

Dennis