What sources from 'your own side' do you tend to ignore?

I 'spose your's is a fair criticism, nimh, in that I included among my quickly-selected sample stories that were other than "bad news" which did not relate to Iraqi Army prowess. Not all of Iraq is about The Military and its actvities ... for good or for ill. My point was that positive news out of Iraq is plentiful and available, just not widely dissemintated.

0 Replies

tangent to Timber - yes, I like the cartoons, er, drawings...now that I get them. When I first read the NY'er, as, say, a ten year old, I didn't always get them.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Keltic asked whether this Iraqi army that the US has been building for three years has won a single battle or skirmish on their own without help from US forces.

And the answer is yes. Yes they have. But, because it's not reported in the NYTimes, he's woefully unaware to the point of making judgments - even as he asked the question in more than one thread.

nimh wrote:

Seems a straightforward enough question.

I don't think so. I think he asked it thinking he already knew the answer - just to prove a point (BusHitlerHalliburton's incompetence). I actually composed a long post with plenty of links when I saw his question in the second thread, but on instinct decided against it. (My instinct being that he's a NYTimes kinda guy and, you know, if it's not in there, it's not happening).

So let him find it himself. Or...he can just hold his breath until it shows up in the Times.

0 Replies

This is unbelievable.

When I said I get most of my news from the usual popular sources, including the NY Times, I meant the network news, CNN, Yahoo News, etc. I also basically meant that I do not as rule follow partisan blogs or partisan websites. Being on A2K, I have made frequent-like perhaps once a week or so-visits to the Daily Kos, Commondreams, etc if there is a link to them from an interesting looking post here.

But I do not seek them out. There is not a single link to a partisan website in my list of Favorites.

And oh yeah, I don't listen to political talk radio either, which I am sure makes me immediately suspect in the eyes of Sierra Song.

But since it is a right wing shibboleth that the popular news sources are biased against them-this goes back as least as far as Spiro Agnew, before he pleaded No Contest to taking construction kickbacks-admission that one does not get one's news from right wing websites or Rush and his wannabe's on the radio elicits hoots of derision from the Right.

Sirra, I asked for links, not a lecture. Thank you.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

And the answer is yes. Yes they have. But, because it's not reported in the NYTimes, he's woefully unaware to the point of making judgments.

This is nonsense, Sierra. Keltic has himself posted links on all kinds of things from all kinds of sources. .

Your answers smack of a degree of desperation, to be honest. He asked for a straightforward thing - actual reports on actual military skirmishes the Iraqi army won by itself. None of you appears to have succeeded to bring them. Instead, he gets this barrage of insultive rhetorics about how he must be blinkered, only ever read the NYT, etc. You may yet still prove me wrong, but that strikes me as the kind of bluster of someone who knows he cant come up with the goods, so pre-emptively starts attacking the other with mere rhetorics instead. Its talk radio strategy, but luckily talk radio bluster and intimidation dont go over all too well on a forum like this.

Here, I'll back Keltic up. You know that I read news from all over the place - from all the major US media outlets, to specific political journals, to newspapers from Germany, Hollad, France and the UK. I, too, can not remember a single news report about the Iraqi army winning a battle or skirmish without the help of US soldiers.

If such reports are so plentifully available if you only look outside the NYT, I would have come across stacks of them. I havent. If they are so plentifully available, you would have thought it would be as easy as pie for you to come up with any random list of them, just off the cuff. Instead, you have gone out of your way to not bring any and instead lecture on for posts with assumptions of what Keltic must be like, must read or not read, etc.

Again, if anything that creates the impression of a "preemptive attack", attack is the best defence, etc. I mean, honestly. You "actually composed a long post with plenty of links" but after spending the time compiling that long post with all those links you just couldnt bring yourself to, you know, click that "Submit" button, because you thought Keltic wouldnt believe it if it didnt come from the NYT anyway? When we all know that Keltic regularly posts stuff from a range of different sources himself? Sorry, but the credibility of your assertions is precarious here.

0 Replies

I'm much impressed by the magnificent breadth of the swath cut across information sources which are held to be "liberal" or "leftist".

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

SierraSong wrote:
And the answer is yes. Yes they have. But, because it's not reported in the NYTimes, he's woefully unaware to the point of making judgments.

This is nonsense, Sierra. Keltic has himself posted links on all kinds of things from all kinds of sources. .

He has? Do you have proof of that????

nimh wrote:

Your answers smack of a degree of desperation, to be honest. He asked for a straightforward thing - actual reports on actual military skirmishes the Iraqi army won by itself. None of you appears to have succeeded to bring them. Instead, he gets this barrage of insultive rhetorics about how he must be blinkered, only ever read the NYT, etc. You may yet still prove me wrong, but that strikes me as the kind of bluster of someone who knows he cant come up with the goods, so pre-emptively starts attacking the other with mere rhetorics instead. Its talk radio strategy, but luckily talk radio bluster and intimidation dont go over all too well on a forum like this.

No. He asked "if the new Iraqi army has won a single battle or skirmish on it's own, ever." I (eventually) answered, "Yes". He also got replies (in the other thread) that, "much like the South Vietnamese Army before it, the "new" Iraqi Army is basically a figment of the imagination. Or perhaps wishful thinking..."....and, "How could they have a "new" Army when the US has already killed everyone of military age?"

Should I be demanding links from these folks to back up their statements?
(Actually, the current situation is more a mirror image of Vietnam since the facts show that as the Iraqi Army progresses in acting independently, the multinational forces are put into more of an "advisory" role).

nimh wrote:

Here, I'll back Keltic up. You know that I read news from all over the place - from all the major US media outlets, to specific political journals, to newspapers from Germany, Hollad, France and the UK. I, too, can not remember a single news report about the Iraqi army winning a battle or skirmish without the help of US soldiers.

In all that reading, have you seen any reports of good news coming out of Iraq? Do you ever stop to ask yourself why that is?

nimh wrote:

If such reports are so plentifully available if you only look outside the NYT, I would have come across stacks of them. I havent. If they are so plentifully available, you would have thought it would be as easy as pie for you to come up with any random list of them, just off the cuff. Instead, you have gone out of your way to not bring any and instead lecture on for posts with assumptions of what Keltic must be like, must read or not read, etc.

No. It was KW who stated his source preferences. I merely pointed out that he should stop whining about things of which he knows nothing if he so limits himself.

nimh wrote:

Again, if anything that creates the impression of a "preemptive attack", attack is the best defence, etc. I mean, honestly. You "actually composed a long post with plenty of links" but after spending the time compiling that long post with all those links you just couldnt bring yourself to, you know, click that "Submit" button, because you thought Keltic wouldnt believe it if it didnt come from the NYT anyway? When we all know that Keltic regularly posts stuff from a range of different sources himself? Sorry, but the credibility of your assertions is precarious here.

You should prove that KW regularly posts stuff from a range of different sources, shouldn't you? Otherwise, his (and your) credibility is precarious here, no? The fact is, I'm quite confident in knowing of the progress being made in Iraq. The fact that our troops have taken on the monumental task of even attempting to give the Iraqis the knowledge, tools and confidence to provide for their own security (under what I can only imagine are the most difficult circumstances) speaks volumes to their integrity and dedication. It depresses me that none of the milestones reached are reported to the American people through conventional media, but as I've long thought, it wouldn't square with their portrayal of screeching "QUAGMIRE" every chance they get.

Of course, any rational person would realize that yes, it's been three long years - but any rational person would also take into consideration that the task of training the "new Iraqi Army" wasn't started the day after we pulled Saddam's statue down. So, if KW wants to use his own ignorance of what's really happening in Iraq to denigrate the current Administration, that's up to him. It's not my job to educate him, but I can ask him to stop whining about it and making silly statements.

KW (and now, you) remind me of that tiresome toddler on a long road-trip with the parents. "Are we THERE yet?"........whine!

0 Replies

"KW (and now, you) remind me of that tiresome toddler on a long road-trip with the parents. "Are we THERE yet?"........whine!"

...except instead of a family vacation with a definite endpoint, it's a costly and protracted occupation of a hostile country which was undertaken with only vague strategic goals in mind. But otherwise, that analogy is solid as a rock.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

He asked "if the new Iraqi army has won a single battle or skirmish on it's own, ever." I (eventually) answered, "Yes". He also got replies (in the other thread) that, "much like the South Vietnamese Army before it, the "new" Iraqi Army is basically a figment of the imagination. Or perhaps wishful thinking..."....and, "How could they have a "new" Army when the US has already killed everyone of military age?"

Should I be demanding links from these folks to back up their statements?

Sure, why not. Like you, I think those replies were nonsense, especially the lurid latter one by .. NickFun I think it was. If you want to underline that their statements are false, then yeah sure, ask them for links, and they wont be able to come up with them.

Much like you dont seem to be able to come up with links on this question.

Meanwhile, what the claims of random other posters are supposed to say about Keltic's actual question, I dont know. Seems like a red herring to me.

SierraSong wrote:

In all that reading, have you seen any reports of good news coming out of Iraq? Do you ever stop to ask yourself why that is?

Of course I have. There has been some good news too, though it represents a stark and decreasing minority of the news that comes out of Iraq of course. But though I've come across news reports of some good things that have happened - especially in Kurdistan - I have not, however, seen any report of the Iraqi army winning a single battle on its own, far as I can remember. Hence the question: did they ever? Can anyone show us?

SierraSong wrote:

You should prove that KW regularly posts stuff from a range of different sources, shouldn't you? Otherwise, his (and your) credibility is precarious here, no?

Uhm, no. If, like you, I would consistently refuse to provide a single link when asked, and hurl insults and insinuations at you for even asking at that, yes, I would make myself pretty suspicious. But thats not the case. If you want links I can bring them <shrugs>

Why? Do you really believe that Keltic is "woefully unaware" of anything that's "not reported in the NYTimes", like you asserted below? I was assuming that was just a rhetorical joke, kinda.

SierraSong wrote:

The fact that our troops have taken on the monumental task of even attempting to give the Iraqis the knowledge, tools and confidence to provide for their own security

You're talking like the Iraqis never had an army before. Never mind that they fought a ten-year massive war with Iran, which they basically won.

SierraSong wrote:

The fact that our troops have taken on the monumental task of even attempting to give the Iraqis the knowledge, tools and confidence to provide for their own security (under what I can only imagine are the most difficult circumstances) speaks volumes [..] any rational person would also take into consideration that the task of training the "new Iraqi Army" wasn't started the day after we pulled Saddam's statue down.

OK, are you still making the argument that the Iraqi army has indeed won battles and skirmishes without US help, or that its only logical that they can't yet? I'm confused.

SierraSong wrote:

I can ask him to stop whining about it and making silly statements.

Thing is, you have not offered a shred of checkable evidence that his question was indeed silly. If it were indeed such a silly question that would be so easy to answer, one would have thought that it would have cost you - or any of you - about 2 minutes to come up with those links. That is, a mere fraction of the time you have by now spent arguing about it.

SierraSong wrote:

KW (and now, you) remind me of that tiresome toddler on a long road-trip with the parents. "Are we THERE yet?"........whine!

And as I said, you remind me of the talk show host who, when challenged on a fact he can not provide, just starts trying to outshout the other - hurl insults, throw up red herrings - anything he can to avoid being shown to have been put on the spot. And getting ever more furious when simply asked the concrete question again. This one, in fact.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

This is nonsense, Sierra. Keltic has himself posted links on all kinds of things from all kinds of sources.

SierraSong wrote:

He has? Do you have proof of that????

I have.

In just the past few days, I have given links to the Middletown, (CT), Press on an article involving the Senate race there. Link.

Here's a link of a chart I made myself from official Dow Jones market info, supplied by Yahoo Finance. Chart.

Here is the link I gave to the American Conservative Union ratings, so people can guage how conservatives view legislative members. Ratings.

That's just in the past few days. However, going back some time, allow me to point out the chart I made from offical Congressional Budget Office data, (which is also linked), of the deficit under three presidents. Graph.

Sierra, you've been demanding proof that I support my posts with links and data. Can YOU come up with as varied a collection of sources as I have? I severely doubt it.

Now, enough of this juvenile peekaboo, "I-know-but-I-am-not-gonna-tell-you" baloney. If you have sources for cases of the Iraqi army winning battles on their own that are not reported in the mainstream media, then produce them. If you do not, there is little choice but for everyone to consider you a blowhard who has painted herself into a corner and is foolishly trying to bluff her way out.

0 Replies

As it happens, there was a clash between Iraq forces and a Shiite militia in the city of Diwaniyah going on even as we had this conversation. However, it was WELL reported in the mainstream press. Several minutes were devoted to it on the network evening news shows Monday-I know, because I saw the newscast.

It was also all over the internet, and I presume the newspapers as well, since the internet carried several accounts of it.

While it shows at least that the Iraqi forces are willing to engage the insurgents and militias, I'm not sure it really qualifies as a victory since the militias got the better of the casualty count, plus they took over two neighborhoods of the city only AFTER the Iraqi army started attacking them.

Apparently,the fighting is over now when the head of the militia's movement, Sadr, (who controls 30 seats in the Iraqi Parliament}, brokered a deal with the army to stop the fighting.

So this is not really a case of going into a place controlled by the insurgents, overrunning their position, and taking prisoners. The clash can most charitably be called a draw, though the militia certainly seemed to have gotten the better of things.

Even this draw was only accomplished with aid of MultiNational Force helicopter help, which prevented snipers from the militia taking positions on rooftops.

Here is the account from a mainstream source-ABC News. Diwaniyah.

0 Replies

KW - I can't decide if you're just another barking moonbat or the big, whining crybaby you make yourself out to be.

Seriously, you need to ask yourself whether the fact that more than 275,000 Iraqis have been trained and equipped to take over responsibility for their own security is somewhat of a miracle (all things considered) and if true (it is), then why the hell hasn't this been reported in your news source of choice, the NYTimes?

Could it possibly be that ..................... THEY CAN'T!!!

It would go against their very cut & run agenda and how .... HOW???????? could they then continue to propagandize IT'S A QUAGMIRE!!!!!!!!!!!

Got it? Good.

Now, I've already told you that we are already halfway to the goal of training 10 Divisions (5 are up and running), although you didn't see any headlines on this in the lamestream media. Why???????????

That should have been Hint #1. What the hell do you think all these newly trained Iraqis have been doing all Summer? Twiddling their thumbs?

Hint #2. Widen your informational horizons. What the MSM spoon-feeds you isn't necessarily heavily laced with truth. You'll only be doing yourself a favor in recognizing this.

Of course, having facts of what's really being accomplished in Iraq will hamper your ability to slam the administration (at least on this point), but I'm sure you'll find alternate grievances on which to vent.

Hint #3. If I were to tell you that just a couple of months ago there was a week in which 452 raids were carried out and that 143 of those raids were conducted by Iraqi forces acting alone, what would be your response?

I can guess. "Waaaaaaaaahhh! Only 143????? Why not ALL OF THEM!!!"

Baby steps, KW. Baby steps.

When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. And we're more than half way there.

0 Replies

Sierra, you still have yet to link to a single story confirming an IA victory on their own. It should be a trifling matter for you to do so, and yet you cannot/will not. Do it! Link and shut us up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

We've been building this force for three years, and as far as I can tell, they have not done a single thing on their own, without help from American forces.

If the goal was to leave the country so that this new government can defend itself, it looks like it is never going to happen.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1273/2514/1600/NYT_BinLaden.gif

0 Replies

SirraSong, you have got to be one of the least competent people to appear in quite awhile.

I asked a single question days ago. Has the Iraqi Army won a single battle or skirmish on their own where, without assistance from US forces, they went up to a position held by mioitias or insurgents, engaged the enenmy and overran their position.

I asked the question politely.

Instead, Sierra Song here responds with long screeds, no doubt fresh from her favorite right wing talk radio heroes, about how the mainstream media is not reporting all these successes the Iraqi Army is racking up.

Yet when I politely ask her days ago to post some links to these occurrences, she is mum. She is too busy going off of the lack of reporting the mainstream media is doing to the Iraqi successes she is unable to prove.

SierraSong seems to think she is covering up this fact by her long, silly, overemotional posts. She is wrong.

She has painted herself into a corner, and is trying to scream her way out.

0 Replies

You see, KW, the mainstream internet doesn't post that sort of stuff, because the internet has an inherent liberal bias due to the information sharing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Please note that in the the only sizable confrontation between the Iraqi Army and the insurgents/militias, (albeit with the Iraqi Army getting some aid from the Multi-National Forces), the mainstream press and media was all over it. The networks devoted several minutes of their Monday nightly newscast to it, the press was covering it.

Meanwhile, back here Sierra Song was so in tune with what is REALLY going on in Iraq that she doesn't even mention it. I had to bring it up.

Sierra Song posts message after message shrieking that the mainstream press and TV is supposedly preventing people like myself from finding out what the Iraqi Army is doing, oblivious to the fact that at the same moment the mainstream press and TV is swarming all over the story when the Iraqi Army finally does something, albeit not that successfully.

Unbelievable.

0 Replies

Iraq to take control of its troops
Monday, 28 August 2006

By Staff Sgt. James Sherrill
124th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment

BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government will officially take control of its major air, sea and land-based military commands beginning early next month by standing up the Iraqi Joint Headquarters, a major step toward putting Iraqis in the lead for securing the country, a senior Coalition spokesman here said Aug. 28.

After more than three years of training and assistance for the Iraqi military, the government of Iraq has created the conditions for the Iraqi military to begin reporting directly to its government for orders, rather than relying on Coalition command structures, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the Multi-National Force - Iraq senior spokesman, said.

To date, over 129,000 Iraqi defense forces have been trained and equipped. The goal is to have 137,000 troops in the Iraqi military.

"There will be no Coalition forces in the (Iraqi) chain of command whatsoever," said Caldwell.

Currently, senior-level Iraqi commanders report to the Coalition's Multi-National Corps headquarters to receive their orders for major operations. The Multi-National Corps coordinates these operations with the Iraq's Ministry of Defense. The Iraqi Joint Headquarters will take on the role of issuing orders and coordination with the Coalition, providing the critical link between the MoD and Iraqi units certified for independent security operations.

The new headquarters is expected to stand up in early September.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki serves as "Commander-in-Chief, just like our (American) president," Caldwell said.

Iraqi forces continue to operate side-by-side with Coalition troops throughout the country, leading patrols and planning raids against insurgents. But the orders have ultimately come from the Coalition, said Army Maj. Gerald Ostlund, a public affairs officer with the Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq. MNSTC-I is responsible for training and equipping the Iraqi forces.

While officials here stress the significance of the Iraqi government's achievement as being ready to control the military as a whole, Iraqi military commanders already control significant forces at the division, brigade and battalion level, working hand-in-hand with Coalition forces.

In all, five division headquarters, 26 brigade headquarters and 85 battalions have taken the lead in operations. About a quarter of all security operations are conducted independently by Iraqi security forces alone and over two-thirds are conducted by Coalition forces in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Less than 10 percent of operations are conducted by Coalition forces alone.

The relationship between Iraqi and Coalition forces will be spelled out in a formal agreement that provides the Iraqi military full authority to employ its forces as needed to accomplish security missions, while the Coalition continues to assist in training, equipping and supplying its forces in order to shape them into a fully effective force.

The Iraqi Joint Headquarter will have three major components responsible for land, air and naval activities. The Iraqi Ground Forces Command - the primary component for security operations - will stand up at the same time as the Iraqi Joint Headquarters and will gradually take control of the 10 Iraqi Army divisions..

Five divisions are already taking the lead in operations in their respective areas of the country. That number is expected to increase to six by the end of next month, according to Coalition officials.