Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

[MWM]

Like I said earlier, the media's job isn't to be "fair and balanced", it's to tell the truth. There are many, many bad things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news, just like there are many good things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news.

And this is what disturbs me. The problem I have is that the coverage of the war is so different depending on the news source, it's hard to know who's telling the truth and who isn't. It's nice to have soldiers give their opinions and you certainly have to give credence to what they say, but I also don't think the soldiers are capable of being objective either. I appreciate what thay're doing and I have a lot of admiration for them. And I DO want to hear what they have to say. But the nature of the job they have to do probably prevents them from being completely objective. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Morale is critically important for the military and it would difficult to keep it high if they don't stay focused on the positive.

[RedFanAlways1966]

RF and I must read different things. Because there is not a fair share of both good & bad stories regarding Iraq in what I read. All lives are precious (not part of The Baath Party philosophy), but whether it is 1, 2 or 7 soldiers killed in battle... it is always in the front-page section with a noticable headline. That headline does not say "Clash leaves 50 dead insurgents and 7 dead Marines". It normally is along the lines of "7 US Marines killed in Battle". And I have made it a point to see if the media points out the number of insurgents casualities. A lot of times there is no mention of it or it is buried deep in the story in a fashion like "and a number of insurgents were killed".

50 dead - 7 dead.... 57 total dead. A sad way for humans to rectify problems. We send man to the moon, cure diseases... but still revert to an age old way of settling disputes between two parties (kill). Technology is used, as it was to send Apollo 11 in space and save lives... and to find better ways to kill the "enemy" (a fellow human being). Sad. This is how it is still done and I can't change it. But I'd still say, in this brutality, that the side w/ 50 dead got their rears beaten pretty badly. However, this is not the tale I read in my local paper everyday. I get the vibe that the U.S. is losing the war. 50 to 7... not what I read. I get 7 to "no mention or some are dead".

[Redsfaithful]

But I'd still say, in this brutality, that the side w/ 50 dead got their rears beaten pretty badly.

We killed over a million Vietnamese in Vietnam. And lost.

[Phoenix]

I expect the Shiites will win power come election day. Its my hope that we can soon get out of there. The remanants of the Baath Party will continue to use terror to try to unseat the new gov't and hopefully they'll be up to the challenge. What's the alternative? Give the gov't to the terrorists?

[RedFanAlways1966]

We killed over a million Vietnamese in Vietnam. And lost.

Lost? No. But I'll try to explain the facts of that situation...

Nixon was elected US president in Nov. 1968 and formal negotiations with North Vietnam (NV) started in Jan. 1969, w/ the first US troop withdrawals taking place in July. Bitter fighting continued though 1970 including a NV offensive in Feb. & March 1969 and a major military success for the US at the Battle of Hamburger Hill in May 1969. As fighting continued in South Vietnam (SV) in 1970, US and SV forces conducted a joint operation near the Cambodian border where they found and destroyed vast NV logistic stocks. This was followed by a countrywide NV attack on over 100 US and SV facilities and the fighting was fierce, but lasted less than a week b/c logistical difficulties (Cambodia stock destroyed) forced the attackers to curtail the operation and withdraw. This brought NV to the negotiating table. The US agreed to withdrawal more troops and they transferred ground operations to SV troops on August 11. The US continued to patrol the seas and the sky.

After a visit to Moscow by NV politicians in 1972, the Soviets agreed to a major invasion of the South (arms and supplies to NV). The attack began in March 30, 1972 and was known as the Easter Invasion. The invasion acheived some successes, but it soon ground to a halt (logistical problems once again sting the NV in part) due mainly to the determined SV troops. This gave the US confidence that the SV troops could succeed. After Nixon ordered the mining of NV harbors and the blockade of land and sea routes, the NV returned to the negotiating tables. A formal ceasefire agreement was announced on Jan. 23, 1973 and became effective on Jan. 28, 1973. Feb. 12 was a significant day for the US as the first US POWs were released. The last combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973.

Meanwhile the NV were increasing their troops and re-building their war machine while the SV suffered partly due to decreased US aid. By the start of 1975 the NV had free run along the borders and controlled substantial areas within the South. The SV army was spread thin and unable to hold anywhere. The eventually overran Saigon on April 30, 1975.

The NV did not beat the US. The US did not LOSE to the NV army. That is fact. I shake my head when I see or hear people say that the US lost in Vietnam. The NV sometimes made advances on the US, but were always beat back. The US did not invade the North. Their job was to protect the South. Sounds like Kuwait-Iraq in Gulf War I for the US. And both times the other side did not hold true to their word when a halt was brought to US military activities. Perhaps we have learned a lesson from our withdrawal in Vietnam (among many other political, not military, blunders) and negotiating w/ certain types of people? I hope.

I try to understand why peole say the US lost to NV when in fact (read above) that is not true. It is WRONG. NV gained nothing when the US was there. But, as this topic is about, certain media gets RF to actually believe that the US lost in Vietnam. RF, as are a lot of people in our country, is not old enough to remember what happened back in 1970-1975. They get some of their information from media (internet and the like mainly) that seem to tell wrong info about Vietnam. Freedom of speech is a great thing, but it is a shame when people are misinformed b/c of it. There is a parallel to be drawn with Iraq and Vietnam in all this though. Vietnam was the first US war where the media played a major factor in swaying the US public to their agenda. That, BTW, is a fact IMO. The stuff about how the US left Vietnam is a fact as well... but not IMO, in truth.

[RedsBaron]

I no longer have the book, but years ago I read a book by Col. Harry Summers entitled ( I believe) "On Strategy." The book concerned military strategy in general and the Viet Nam War in particular. Summers quoted a discussion which he had after the war with a high-ranking North Vietnamese official. Summers told him: "You [referring to the North Vietnamese] never defeated us [America] on the battlefield." The North Vietnamese official replied: "True, but that is irrelevant."
An argument can be made that the United States won every military battle in the Viet Nam War and still lost the war.

[Redsfaithful]

An argument can be made that the United States won every military battle in the Viet Nam War and still lost the war.

And that would be the correct argument, in my opinion. The entire point of Vietnam was to stop Communist "creep", and we failed.

The point of resistance movements isn't really to win battles. It's to outlast the occupation until they leave.

We didn't win too many battles in the Revolutionary War, but I don't see anyone saying the British won.

[Redsfaithful]

Here's a different perspective of Iraq, from an Iraqi woman's POV:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/20...40049776566608

Everyone views the world through their own experience. Everyone wants to have the work they're doing validated. And everyone wants to live a life full of peace and normality.

[Mutaman]

Here's a different perspective of Iraq, from an Iraqi woman's POV:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/20...40049776566608

Everyone views the world through their own experience. Everyone wants to have the work they're doing validated. And everyone wants to live a life full of peace and normality.

Thanks, really interesting. I never thought that Iraqi's would be threatened into voting, but now that I think about it, it makes perfectly good sense, and just continues the same old pattern.

[Ravenlord]

read the article. i haven't read any poster's comments. my thoughts are as follows:

1. he's right about the media. he's echoed dang near everything my friends and family in Iraq have said in letters and e-mail.

2. the timing of car bombings is a beautiful tactic. absolute genious by the terrorists. the ancient Greeks would be proud. (i know someone's gonna interpret that very wrong, but oh well).

3. the thing about even Al Jazeera showing up to something positve and the Western outlets not, is just down right scary. if reporters are so afraid to leave their little block, they shouldn't be there...just like they were in Vietnam and Korea and World War II.

4. i wasn't aware of the scale of the Arab on Arab travesties, but because of letters recieved, i knew they existed.

5. there's not really much to disagree with.

6. i'm sure someone's gonna say this isn't a credible story do to the website it's on. and i'm sure it's someone on the left. (please letme be pleasently surprised)

7. i'm sure someone's gonna comment on this: "Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not."

someone's gonna say something along the lines of: "they shouldn't be able to do that cause it is misleading"
to which someone else will reply: "would you prefer more Americans die in the operation"

again, lemme be wrong on that.

8. that i'm probably the only one who knows anything about the authors he was talking about in the article. actually, this isn't an article because it's an opinon (i'm sure there's griping about that too). is still called an editorial or something else?

[Ravenlord]

Am I the only person who would be really disturbed if the media was simply cheerleading?

nope. they should really quit doing it.

Like I said earlier, the media's job isn't to be "fair and balanced", it's to tell the truth. There are many, many bad things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news, just like there are many good things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news.

Here's a blog that details everything that happens in Iraq everyday:

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

It's stunning how many bombings there are, how many people are killed, etc that don't make the news.

agreed. but most people get there news from print or TV. most people totally disregard internet sources.

The internet is the place to get news anymore anyway. I certainly agree with this guy that the mainstream media has failed us, I just feel that way for different reasons.

what's the reason? (although i'll probably find the answer to that as i read further down the page).

[Ravenlord]

I just think he's wrong. Most stories I read have the number of insurgents killed included. It might not be the focal point of the story, but it's usually there.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html



That's from the newest CNN.com "roundup". I think they report what they have to be honest. If the military releases an enemy casualty number then they seem to include it.

but is the number killed included in print and on TV?

[Ravenlord]

We killed over a million Vietnamese in Vietnam. And lost.

ever read Ho Chi Minh's book?

[Ravenlord]

Here's a different perspective of Iraq, from an Iraqi woman's POV:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/20...40049776566608

Everyone views the world through their own experience. Everyone wants to have the work they're doing validated. And everyone wants to live a life full of peace and normality.

interesting.

1. what will her opinion after some return to normalcy and she has actual freedom?

2. this is an attitude starting to seep into America. how much freedom are you willing to give up for security? consider that Cuba, USSR, and China are some of the most secure places in the world.

3.how big is the area she's referring to?

4. i really hope it's just a misconception on her part about rations being cut off like that...if it's not, someone (a lot of them) need to be imprissoned.