Reply
Wed 6 Aug, 2003 05:15 pm
Voice of free Iraq walks out on US
Brian Whitaker
Wednesday August 6, 2003
The Guardian
A broadcaster who became known as "the voice of free Iraq" after the fall of Saddam Hussein has walked out of his job, saying the United States is losing the propaganda war.
Failure to invest in the new Iraqi broadcasting service means foreign channels are gaining popularity at the expense of the US, Ahmed al-Rikabi, the American-appointed director of TV and radio said yesterday.
"The people of Iraq, including the Sunni Muslims, are not about to turn against their liberators, but they are being incited to do so. These [foreign] channels contribute to tension within Iraq," he said.
Saddam is scoring propaganda successes over the Americans by sending audio tapes to Arab satellite channels, Mr Rikabi continued.
"Saddam is doing better at marketing himself, through al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyya channels," he said, referring to the deposed Iraqi leader's recent messages which have been broadcast throughout the Middle East.
Last April Mr Rikabi, who had been head-hunted by the Americans, announced the overthrow of the Iraqi regime from a tent near Baghdad airport. Many Iraqis still recall his exact words: "Welcome to the new Iraq. Welcome to an Iraq without Saddam, Uday or Qusay."
He then helped to recruit a team of journalists that started TV transmissions lasting up to 16 hours a day. But the channel was dogged by a lack of money and resources.
The station was provided with only three studio cameras and five portable cameras, Mr Rikabi said. For the five portable cameras, they were allowed only 10 rechargeable batteries lasting 15 minutes each.
The best-paid journalist got a salary of $120 a month, compared with the minimum of $500 a month paid by other Arab networks, he added.
There was also a clothing allowance for newsreaders, but only to clothe the visible top half of their bodies.
Stephen Claypole, who was a public affairs adviser to Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, said: "It's very typical of everything the Americans get involved in. They announce large budgets and the money is never released."
Free Iraq.
I think all that you say is true. I don't think though, that the reconstruction of Iraq is at all in jeoperdy. These problems are to be expected when such an extensive overhaul is required. It is all part of the long pull of ridding the world of as much terrorism as possible.
It is all part of the long pull of ridding the world of as much terrorism as possible."
What, exactly, was the terrorism that was ridded in Iraq, again?
The New Iraq.
All dictatorships of the world are encouraging and assisting in the acts of terrorism. Saddam was, and is, one of the most brutal.
What, exactly, were the acts of terrorism that Saddam was encouraging and assisting?
The New Iraq.
I can't think of a more vivid example of terrorism, than what Saddam did to his own people. They have been in constant fear for their lives, since he obtained power. His daily treatment of women and children was worse than the average American can imagine.
Re: The New Iraq.
Olen wrote:I can't think of a more vivid example of terrorism, than what Saddam did to his own people. They have been in constant fear for their lives, since he obtained power. His daily treatment of women and children was worse than the average American can imagine.
Rwanda, Congo, North Korea, China, Columbia.....are we planning on invading them too? What about Turkey (the Kurds), Russia (Chechnya), Slovenia, etc......
BTW, are the Iraqis not still in daily fear for their lives? Now instead of "merely" the government, you may be killed by pretty much anyone, including the "benevolent conquerors."
but "benevolent conquerors" wear white hats, makes all the difference you know.
Olen -- Why not show why Iraq was particularly and especially chosen as a target for invasion by the US? More than the other countries which have be named according to the criterion you set?
I see you're a newcomer, Olen. Welcome!
The New Iraq.
What is YOUR solution?
possible soulutions would include..get rid of need for absolute authority..hat in hand to the UN for an internation peace keeping force..stop thinking that the only solution for a functional government in Iraq has to be approved by the US..deliver the goods and services we have promised both in Iraq and Afghanistan..the list goes on..
Me? I just wanted to know what the basis for invasion was. Did propose there was one, Olen, that you can substantiate?
Now that the damage has been done, I think the US should do the job right or get out -- Dys' list of possibilities resonates with me. In the meantime, things are going to hell in a handcart next door in Aghanistan.
Shhhh... it's UNPATRIOTIC to mention Afghanistan!!!!
Shall we cringe shaking in the corner, depending upon others that have failed us before to take care of us?
if cringing in the corner helps world peace I'm all for it.
The damage was done at the Twin Towers, and we will do the job right, to see that a tragedy
such as that is less likely to happen to us or any of our allies in the future.
The UN and France for two, failed us, and there were others also.
We failed the UN. We very stupidly had them pull out the inspectors and went off, all hot doggy, on our own. Our intelligence certainly played a negative role in the WTC event. We hastily blamed the whole thing on others.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace