No, seems you didn’t, i probably got you mixed up with someone else. And I do agree with you on the propagandistic nature of the iraqi state-sponsored hospital tours.
Still they are no more propagandistic than the coverage from the reporters travelling with the allied forces, or all the press releases from pentagon, and other US/UK military & government sources.
So i believe it is a better thing that they are shown, than if they were not.
The main problem is of course the mass of news media located in washington, london, kuwait city, and among US/UK troops, as opposed to the scarcity of news media in bagdad, basra, kirkut and mosul.
I also agree with you in full on the probable US strategy. Let’s hope it works out that way.
It is a telling fact that war nowadays is an event faraway that in our lives mainly has entertainment quality. It’s not unfortunate for us, but for someone else.
I did say that. I did not have any particular estimate in mind. I did not know Iraq had released any numbers yet. That’s the internet for you. I say this, you reasonably hear that. Perfectly normal.
It’s possible that many Iraqis might be injured. I’m not disputing that. What I’m disputing, if it has been contended, is that the US is using a military strategy (so far, fingers crossed) which has caused many casualties. I would say the opposite, that the plan appears designed to keep casualties of every kind to an absolute minimum. In particular the decision to engage the Iraqi troops before just bombing them into next week. Our troops are risking their lives to give the Iraqis a chance to surrender. I hope people are aware of that.
No, this particular dictator. World diplomacy, military strategy, geopolitics, and strategery generally is a funny thing.
Iraq, by virtue of the US not going to Baghdad in Gulf War I, the US not invading in 1998, and for over a decade there being various thwarted inspection regimes, has a special relationship with the US and the UN. Iraq is different for many reasons. Among them are, the UN disarmament regime, the US cease fire terms, US credibility, UNSC credibility, Saddam’s ability to survive through brutality,* the danger Iraq poses to its neighbors long-term with Saddam in power.
Similarly, North Korea sits behind the DMZ (ha, ha) in a state of suspended war with South Korea. Things can happen there. Not to mention: China-Taiwan, Turkey-Iran-Iraq-Kurds, France versus the Eastern European Alliance… Well, that last one is a stretch.
I see the US role as being active in various alliances, organizations, and world affairs, yes. I would love to be more isolationist in a geopolitical sense. Philosophically it appeals to me. I’m not sure it makes sense in the world any more.
*Not unique. But Saddam is about as bad a dictator as any I’ve heard of.
Beagle, seeing as how Bush had the option of keeping civilian casualties to zero by simply not staging an unprovoked and illegal invasion in the first place, I’m not going to feel all happy and warm over the fact that he may have only incinerated a few dozen toddlers instead of a few thousand.
I’m not watching television, but I am keeping NPR on pretty much non-stop. (I’ve got it on at work right now.) I’m not enjoying it, but I feel compelled to listen. I suspect that many others feel the same way. It makes me feel on edge and stressed, but it’s better than not listening.
Beagle maybe you’re not aware of this, but the fact that a country has a really bad dictator is not a legal justification for aggression. Hell, we’re about two more “Home Security” bills from becoming one of those countries ourselves.
Should we invade Cuba next? How about Libya? Here’s a good one, Israel. Sharon is a war criminal with little regard for human rights (and I would argue that Sharon’s actions vis-a-vis the Palestinians is more than a little analogous to Saddam and the Kurds, i.e. Sharon has bombed his “own people”). Not only that, but Israel has been violating the UN resolution for years. If we’re not going to invade israel, why not? Shouldn’t we at least stop giving them money? It seems to undermine our credibility just a little, don’t you think?
Slow down big fella. I want to make sure Saddam is pushing up flowers and KJI is back in his box before we go invading Israel. First things first. Maybe France, then Israel.
No, actually that was a bullshit Bullshit rethoric.
That would perhaps hold if at least the majority of world opinion were behind the war. And if the US administration at different points hadn’t tried to make the war to be about everything from WMD to satan’s auntie.
Either way, the US record of ‘humanitarian interventions’ during the (latter part of the) 20th century completely rids the US of any credibility in that respect.
Our Leader has officially proclaimed Sharon a Man of Peace. Those massacres in Lebanon were just a big bloody “oopsy!” We are Israels Very Best Buddy, and they are, quite frequently, ours as well. If you can buy a better friend, go for it.
And those UN resolutions weren’t real UN resolutions, because the didn’t have the approval of the US! And that bombing and strafing attack on the US Navy ship Liberty, well, gee, sometimes mistakes will happen. Sometimes they go on for hours. And Mr. Pollard, the Israeli spying on America, well, he wasn’t really spying, just kind of snooping around, you know?
One might get the idea from your tone that you don’t think Israel has Americas best interests at heart!
’lucy,
I get it now, Sharon kills for peace just like the US violates the UN sanction in order to enforce it or like John Ashcroft must suspend all civil rights in order to protect them.
Anyway… I could argue that massive generalization…
That’s a MOO anyway. (matter of opinion)
I’m enjoying* the fact that there have been mass surrenders, no use of chemical weapons by Saddam’s troops, no carpet bombing of civilian areas, no major city fighting, and it is actually possible that Saddam has been killed or injured.
The preceding paragraph is based on information that is actually available, of course. I wish I had Tommy’s info.
I wish there were no casualties and that the war was already over, but it is going better than I’d hoped. I no longer find the precision bombing footage to be very interesting. See target. See target in reticle. See target go boom. I just want the mass surrenders to get more massive. Or, the Iraqis could just lay down their arms and go home and watch TV. That is an option, since the power is still on.
*I will address the actual topic. I don’t care what you throw at me. Must…talk…about…OP…
I believe rjung nailed it. The TV media moguls are ecstatic about all the business they’re making.
On the packaging of the news , remember that no matter how impartial you claim to be, censorship and slant is always there. These people get say 200 minutes of footage, and they have to choose 10 minutes to show on air. Right then and there, some forms of censorship and slant start to kick in.
Then you go on to more raunchy stuff like what kind of music goes on in the background when US troops or Saddam goes on the air. Subtle and not so subtle words used to describe the events unfolding are my favourite to notice.
My main points:
a) Yes, it’s mostly a media carnival
b) Censorship is EVERYWHERE, subtle and coarse, watch out, use various sources. I suspect many dopers are already aware of this.
As to the OP, it seems to me a lot of the media coverage has a cheerleading aspect to it which is rather disturbing. I also don’t like the fact that anyone from the pentagon or the White House is treated with abject, uncritical reverence by interviewers. Faux News is the worst, of course. Shephard Smith ought to just wave a flag around and wear a “Bush '04” campaign button on his lapel.
Bullshit rethoric.