The US, UN & Iraq II

Sofia, surely you can understand our wariness about that "for your own protection" line, no? We believe that sometimes governments aren't wholy honest.
______________________
Littlek--
Yes, I can imagine there are some, who say "AAh, the US gov is just trying to hide their evil deeds from us. That is why they've cooked up this diabolical story about the war zone not being safe..."

And, then there are others who know---a war zone is never safe.

I think anyone who thinks the US army thought it was a good idea to kill journalists, or committed such an act is mentally unstable. I haven't read back, and do not suggest this of a poster here.

0 Replies

Of course a war zone is never safe! I guess only time will tell (I hope) what happened at that hotel.

0 Replies

Tartarin

re your question, a quote from The Washington Post

Quote:

Samir Ragad, chairman of the board of the Egyptian Gazette suggests the Americans won only because of treachery.

"Frankly, we believed that Baghdad would remain Iraq's impregnable citadel. We thought that Baghdad's walls would turn into swords to decapitate the invaders. Saddam Hussein had misled us into believing that the invaders would never take Baghdad. But the home of five million people collapsed in record time."

The blame, he says, lies with the Iraqi military failure.

"Why did the Iraqis not blow up the bridges over the Tigris and Euphrates to prevent the invaders from reaching their planned targets?" he asks. "It is a disgrace that these huge Iraqi troops relaxed idly and woke up to the roar of gunfire on all sides. It is now clear that the traitors are many and those who gave in to the Satan temptation outnumber them."

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

In the background, on the radio, someone is talking about the surprise that Saddam didn't blow up any of the bridges -- something which would have slowed the US military down quite a bit. Why? Any original thoughts on why he didn't?

The speed and aggression of the simultaneous, closely coordinated US Ground and Air Campaigns severely degraded the ability of the command structure of the Iraqi military. While relatively few bridges were successfully blown by retreating Iraqis, one of those severely inconveniencing the Marines' assault from the Southeast, many, many others were captured intact, even though rigged for demolition the Iraqis were unable to successfully carry out.

Militarily, we more or less gave Iraq's military a groin kick, then pummeled it as it stumbled backwards.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Tartarin wrote:
In the background, on the radio, someone is talking about the surprise that Saddam didn't blow up any of the bridges -- something which would have slowed the US military down quite a bit. Why? Any original thoughts on why he didn't?

The speed and aggression of the simultaneous, closely coordinated US Ground and Air Campaigns severely degraded the ability of the command structure of the Iraqi military. While relatively few bridges were successfully blown by retreating Iraqis, one of which severely inconvenienced the Maraine's assault from the Southeast, many, many others were captured intact, even though rigged for demolition the Iraqis were unable to successfully carry out.

Timber - what do you use as a source? Your posts about the war action often sound like first person narratives.

0 Replies

Sofia,

Of course we all know that war is dangerous. That's our point. It kills innocent people. But it's also true that only those journalists who agreed to report only sanctioned stories are the only ones receiving protection. I heard a journalist for one of the major news magazines, I forget which, say that it didn't take long before every embedded reporter got the message that they were not welcome in Iraq. Not because war is dangerous, but because they were being killed and not protected at all. This seems indicative of a ruthlessness which seems counter to all democratic principles.

0 Replies

I'll be interested to read more about the Iraqi resistence as more is known about it. There certainly are plenty of anomalies...

0 Replies

Timber wrote

Quote:

The tanks were in relatively close proximity to the building, and their main guns don't elevate that high

High enough. ITN journalist was about to file a report live to camera, when he looked down from the 14th floor and found himself staring right down the gun barrel of an Abrams tank. [I will have to look up the guy's name, but its on record].

They decided to move away from the balcony into the building, then within a second or two the fatal explosion occurred.

As I said earlier if someone told me the US military would deliberately kill non embedded journalists I would not have believed it possible. But the facts speak for themselves and are undeniable. (I don't blame the tank commander btw, he was just obeying orders).

0 Replies

They are, snood. 'nuff said.

(edit) Well, not exactly first-person; they're not my own direct observations, but are gathered from e-mails and other communications from folks in that neighborhood, more or less. (thought I should make that clear)

0 Replies

I heard a journalist for one of the major news magazines, I forget which, say that it didn't take long before every embedded reporter got the message that they were not welcome in Iraq. Not because war is dangerous, but because they were being killed and not protected at all.
________________________________

I refute this assertion. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you heard this-- but if a journalist said "every embedded reporter got the message they were not welcome in Iraq...because they were being killed and not protected at all" I say that is bullshit and he is a liar. I have heard the reports from embeds and read their articles. There may be some reporters who aren't welcome, but the embeds are being protected. How many embeds have died and HOW have they died?

I hope you can think of where you saw this.

Language not directed at you.

0 Replies

I heard it on NPR and when I have a chance I'll track it down. It was just after an well known (whose name I can't recall right now either -- anybody want to help me here?), non embedded journalist barely escaped being shot. I'm out the door right now. When I come back I'll look back. I didn't doubt the truth of what the journalist said.

0 Replies

Steve, I wasn't there ... just like you, the proximate source of the info is the account of a likely, very understandably excited civilian reporter. I don't claim it didn't happen, I submit merely that I see a number of things which lessen, at least in my mind, the probability that it went down quite the way it was related. Too much of it is just inconsistent with experiential reference and and understanding of tactical doctrine. I posit my own conclusion, others will of course accept the reporter's version. An investigation is assured. That too no doubt will be controversial.

0 Replies

At Al-Kindi hospital in Baghdad yesterday, stocks of painkillers had run so low that surgeons were operating on patients anaesthetised with headache pills.

0 Replies

Another view of the above mentioned "incident" by Robert Flint in the 'Toronto Star':

Were these deaths mishap, or murder? Attacks don't reflect well on the U.S.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

And Tress ....

Did you read up the last few pages of this thread, at all? See my posts there? Thought I was just making up stories so that you would be thinking that ... <sighs> - ah, fugheddaboutit Edit: ah - the text of your post changed, I think (it says "Edited 1 time"). Took out the insulting bit. OK! Thats awright then.

Yes, I had read it at that time, and yes I edited my post and took out the knee-jerk inappropriate part. Very Happy

0 Replies

Yesterday, US medical personnel, supplies, and equipment weren't there. Tomorrow they will be, frolic. Civilian Aid and Assistance is a high-priority mission at the moment.

0 Replies

The US is pushing to get Mr Chalabi on the throne. But is he the man to bring democracy?

A Shia Muslim born in 1945 to a wealthy banking family, Mr Chalabi left Iraq in 1956 and has lived mainly in the USA and London ever since, except for a period in the mid-1990's when he tried to organise an uprising in the Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
The venture ended in failure with hundreds of deaths.

In 1992, he was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison with hard labour for bank fraud after the 1990 collapse of Petra Bank, which he had founded in 1977. The international arrest warrant was dropped under the pressure of the US.

You see, double standards AGAIN.

0 Replies

sofia

when lola said

Quote:

Not because war is dangerous, but because they were being killed and not protected at all

.

I believe the THEY = NON EMBEDDED. But I'll leave it to Lola to clear that up.

Timber, agree I wasn't there. But I saw the ITN reporter give his account of what happened within minutes of the incident. That's as good a primary source of evidence as you can get - an impartial eye witness. (Except of course that he was inside at the moment the tank fired, but as the army admit to firing, that seems pretty academic). The elevation need not have been that acute. The Abrams was on the bridge maybe 300m away from the Palestine. Firing in the opposite direction was another tank that wrecked the Al Jazeera offices, killing another journalist. But I admit I wasn't there, just watching on live tv with a map of Baghdad.

0 Replies

Chalabi said last year in the German weekly "Die Zeit":
"Personally, I will not run for any office, and I am not seeking any positions. My job will end with the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's rule."

0 Replies

Probably the embeds who play the game are warmly treated and the others less so. Seems logical to me. Don't think the embeds should be taken as providing hard news, but rather as providing "color."

Independent reporters, and particularly those whose nationality doesn't coincide with either the invaders or the reps of the invaded country would be the most reliable of all, I'd imagine. Though of course the independents (as much as those who were embedded) were watched by "minders" and will have been limited to what they are allowed to transmit. I'd wait until later, when fuller, less pressured reports are given.

However, the embeds and other reporters WERE in touch by cellphone, as those of us who listen to NPR found out, and so they were doubtless exchanging impressions about the situation of being embedded as well as everything else. News about being treated less than well would have travelled around the circuit...

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know