Ah, a bit of a simulpost here Apos, but not all overlap.
You’re within your rights to crticize my examples and supporting statements. Some are weak, I agree.
As I said earlier, this cannot be directly proved. It follows from the logic is that indications that the Coalition might not secure victory tend to discourage Iraqis from opposing Saddam. After all, if the coalition withdraws, Iraqis who opposed Saddam can expect torture or death. That’s what happened in 1991.
If the war really is going badly, then BBC is doing right by presenting it that way. If it’s going better than the way they present it, then their presentation arguably discourages opposition to Saddam. More opposition means a longer war and more deaths.
I don’t claim this to be a major problem. It’s more a moral point, to me. The point is that opposing war and focusing on problems aren’t necessarily beneficial.
Mandelstam, of course Baghdad is far more important than the small town of Shatra. However, what’s occurring in Shatra is an indication that citizens of Baghdad may also welcome coalition forces, once they’re convinced that it’s safe to do so.
BTW I don’t consider Baghdad to be the “big salami.” I think we have already eaten the big salami, but some people haven’t realized it. IMHO the true “big salami” is
– control of the air,
– control of the only port, and
– control of Iraq’s oil fields.
The Coalition can get all the supplies it wants and can attack Saddam’s forces at will. Saddam cannot deliver an attack, cannot pay for supplies and couldn’t easily get them delivered. We can take Baghdad however we like, e.g., by siege, by bombing, by fomenting an uprising, or by a land attack. We could even partition the country, leaving Baghdad alone, since Iraq’s wealth is already under our control.
—BTW I don’t consider Baghdad to be the “big salami.” I think we have already eaten the big salami, but some people haven’t realized it. IMHO the true “big salami” is control of the air, control of the only port, and control of Iraq’s oil fields.—
But none of these things were ever in any doubt by anyone involved. The first one we’ve had for 13 years, and can hardly be credited as a gain for this operation. The other two objectives were only lightly defended in the first place. It doesn’t seem like the big salami is what you say it is from at least Saddam’s perspective goals: which seem to be to draw us into urban conflicts in which he can manipulate Arab opinion against us as well as even up the tactical odds.
—We could even partition the country, leaving Baghdad alone, since Iraq’s wealth is already under our control.—
The point of this was not to control Iraq’s wealth (or, at least, that’s not what we said it was for). It was, ostensibly, to end Saddam’s regime and disarm him of WMD (which, if they exist, look more and more likely to be stored in Baghdad for use in a last ditch suicide effort). Both of these now put the “big salami” squarely in Baghdad. The other major part of the “big salami” is in keeping Arab opinion worldwide from going overboard while we do this.
Gotta say we pissed ourselves laughing in the newsroom with all the back-slapping about “Iraq’s coastline is now under control”. Just one step up from securing Afghanistan’s coastline, really.
Sorry, but this is just hopeless. Consider the seriousness of the accusation you’ve made, then wonder if you can glibly excuse it with statements admitting your examples are weak and you have no proof.
Out of interest, should I start to accuse you of causing casualties with a similar lack of any reasonable basis how fair would you think it?
Such serious bias as your OP claimed could indeed be proven. You have failed to do so.
I’ve been watching news clips of humanitarian supplies being unloaded from a ship in the port of Umm Qasr. Why is this a joke?
I assume because they don’t really have much of a coastline to secure - 58km (about 36 miles) of it
Because Iraq has an extremely small amount of coastline. From the CIA World Factbook Iraq entry
A quick conversion shows 58 Kilometers = 36.039529 Miles. This is not a large amount of territory. Kuwait, that tiny little country you may or may not remember, has 499 km of coastline. For those who wish a US-based reference point, this chart breaks down US coastline by state. Of the non-landlocked US States, only three INDIVIDUAL STATES have less coastline than Iraq.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview: Kal already posted the meat of this post, but the references it contains still make it worthwile IMHO.
Hello, Mandelstam. I’ve enjoyed reading your very eloquent posts related to the war.
As for your speculation, it is as good a theory as any! In the past, I must admit that I was probably at fault for some double or triple posts (get impatient and hit “stop” and then “submit” again without realizing it must have already gone through). But, I swear to God (or whoever) that this time I waited things out and just let it grind away for 15 minutes. In other words “I’m not guilty!”
Okay, I admit that you kind of have me there. See, I am not really sure but since it seemed to be about the closest thing to a substantive point besides the thing about the Virginia school (and also led to the title of the article which was “Candidate Defies Gravity”), I had trouble dismissing it totally as jest. But, hey, maybe it was complete jest in which case there is even less substance in that op-ed.
Yeah…too bad I can’t provide a link to it. I tried searching to see if it was available online somehow but indeed could not find it. All I have is the photocopy I made from the newspaper itself.
Yeah…I guess you are right that the point was more to how you measure the returns. But, it seemed obvious to me from the get-go that the whole thing involved people’s time and not “being one step closer” so I didn’t see that as such a big deal either.
And, yes, I agree with you that the article as a whole was worthwhile for pointing out how you have to look at things right. Like I said, what surprised me (and frankly made me a bit skeptical he wasn’t embellishing the story a bit) is that it really took them that long to come up with the right way to look at things. [Admittedly, this would be an unusual form of embellishment where one makes oneself and colleagues look stupider rather than smarter than they really are…But who knows?]
jshore, I know it’s happened to me: I think Windows XP automatically resends after a certain point. Does that sound plausible?
Oh, and thanks. 
december: “[W]hat’s occurring in Shatra is an indication that citizens of Baghdad may also welcome coalition forces, once they’re convinced that it’s safe to do so.”
Perhaps, though there are a lot of regional political differences between the two places. The South was where the big welcome was expected all along.
Okay december. :cue drum roll:
From today’s BBC News:
Fierce fighting, but a warm welcome, an article by another correspondent in the south.
Excerpt: "The fighting for al-Zubayr - a town of a quarter of a million people - has been fierce.
But the Royal Tank Regiment commander in charge of the British assault says there has been a warm welcome from many of its people.
“There’s no denying there was some brutal street fighting going on in this town,” said Colonel Piers Hankinson.
"Our equipment was fantastic. Our men are now battle-hardened. And we have won this battle. Militarily it was highly successful."
In other headlines:
Bush Promises Iraqis "Freedom"
**Number 10 rejects War Criticism**
Baghdad Suffers Relentless Onslaught
I’d ask if I can rest my case but I know you better than that. 
I’m impressed by your cites, Mandelstam.
Well, maybe. I’m still on Windows 98 though so it would have to be a feature of it too. (Or maybe a browser feature…I use Netscape.)
—Of the non-landlocked US States, only three INDIVIDUAL STATES have less coastline than Iraq.—
And even those probably have more lake and river lines per square mile.
Aside to jshore, yes I do use Netscape as a matter of fact. Perhaps that’s the culprit!
Here’s a Beeb story for you, dec: Fierce fighting, but a warm welcome. Note that the story isn’t universally positive, and notes the paradoxical reaction of the Iraqis to their ‘liberators’, but it is still spun, headline-wise, in a positive manner.
Nice link jjimm,
With the BBC pushing that sort of defeatist nonsense, the resulting drop in troop morale could lead to thousands of extra casualties. Damned pinko commie subversives the lot of them.
jjimm, Gary: You missed a few posts above your own. december has seen the article you posted and has acknowledged its “impressiveness.” An armistice may soon be negotiated.
I’m sorry, but I find your reporting of this thread to be overly pessimistic. There is no need for an armistice when the jjimm/myself coalition is so close to victory. In fact this whole thread has gone entirely to plan, and any suggestions otherwise are pro-december spin which could cause many unnecessary posts.
“…which could cause many unnecessary posts.”
Now that’s what I call a humanitarian crisis…
Several of my posts have been hit by friendly ire.