BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq

Subject: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 01:47 PM

I beleive that this is the reality for the majority of Iraqis. At least from the reports of those who have been there that i have spoken with. Geraldo is not the best reporter - but it's a different view of how he tends to normally report. My opinion is that the burning buildings would be his normal turf -

The Buildings That Aren't Burning In Iraq

Geraldo is not normally a supporter of the Bush administration but he was so impressed with the rapid and positive political and social changes taking place in Iraq observed during his recent trip to that country that he had to make the report contained in this The buildings that AREN'T burning in Iraq.... Probably each of you has
wondered if things could be as bad as Brokaw, Jennings, et al, have been painting it.

"They have a saying in the news business," Geraldo Rivera related this week. "Reporters don't report buildings that don't burn." And with that introduction, he told a TV audience about the story that is being systematically denied to our entire nation: the success story of post-Saddam Iraq.

---

Copy-paste non-music article deleted. read it here (click).
-Joe Offer-

---

Me again - and it is with pride that I think of the progress made and it is because of our troops willingness to do good things for others that has allowed this to occur. Least I think so - but what is one opinion? Just a .02 worth

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 02:25 PM

"Iraq is being built. There was no infrastructure before; we are doing it."   Of course there was an infrastructure, before it got destroyed in the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 02:32 PM

Would be nice if they rebuilt some of the decrepit buildings that our own citizens are living in. $86 billion would go a long way in making hunger and poor health care disappear in the U.S.A.

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 02:43 PM

"When I got to Baghdad, I barely recognized it," he began, comparing his just-completed trip to two others he made during and just after the battle to topple Saddam. "You have over 30,000 Iraqi cops and militiamen already on the job.

This is four months after major fighting stopped. Can you imagine that kind of gearing up in this country?

Not hard to imagine, Geraldo & Steve, when all the other jobs are gone. If someone bombed out my city, and the only work was to train for the police and preserve cultural sites (which is part of my field anyway, in a different sense) I'd go into the police. I think we'd get 30, 000 new applicants in Philadelphia, and I trust we'd be on the ground doing the job in four months. Why, it's downright unpatriotic to suggest we Americans wouldn't be up to the task.

Anyway, remember 9/11? Firefighters and police officers drove from all over the country to help out.

"To say that Iraq is being rebuilt is not true," answered Rivera. "Iraq is being built. There was no infrastructure before; we are doing it. I just think the good news is being underestimated and underreported."

Not quite true. There WAS infrastructure before we detroyed it. I guess it depends what you mean by "before."

If I hear one more person mock that "Mission Accomplished" banner beneath which President Bush thanked a shipload of sailors and Marines a few months back, I'm going to spit. That was a reference to the ouster of Saddam's regime, and that mission was indeed accomplished, apparently to the great chagrin of the American left. No one said what followed would be easy or cheap, and that's why the dripping-water torture of the cost and casualty stories is so infuriating.

Nice try, Steve. But then, why did the White House spokesman disavow knowledge of the banner, claiming that the Navy had decided to hang it, then blush when he had to admit that the President's people had brought the banner out? G.W. Bush KNEW the mission was not accomplished even then. You could hang a "mission accomplished" banner every single day (presumably SOMEONE accomplishes a mission every day), but unless it signals the end of the fighting, you're just blowing smoke.

And if you don't believe that the President did that whole thing as a publicity stunt, I've got an aircraft carrier to sell you. After all, if he really just wanted to thank the crew then why was there a full news crew flown out before him?

If you want to talk about the media duping the American People, how about that Jessica Lynch story? We've gotten distorted coverage both pro-Bush and Anti-Bush, but I think the majority has been pro. I understand that you don't agree, but to take Geraldo's word as Gospel is not a strong case.

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 03:13 PM

Oh, and Bush DID say what followed would be easy and cheap. He said we'd be greeted by cheering crowds and open arms. When the army needed cheering crowds to attend the statue pull-down, they needed to import them from outside Iraq, in the form of Ahmed Chalabi's Free Iraqi Forces (see here ). In the meantime, the welcome our soldiers receive comes in the form of sniping, fragging, and suicide bombs.

As for the cost, before the war, when one of Bush's advisers (Larry Lindsey) released a 200 billion estimate on the cost of the war, he was quickly silenced, and Bush instead went with Mitch Daniels' much lower estimate of about sixty billion total. Now we've spent upwards of a hundred billion (initital cost plus the 87 billion appropriation) in the first year, with no end in sight.

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Strick
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 03:27 PM

"'Iraq is being built. There was no infrastructure before; we are doing it.'   Of course there was an infrastructure, before it got destroyed in the invasion."

The reports I've seen suggest that except for parts of Baghdad and Saddam's home province, Iraq's infrastructure was always limited and decayed substantially after 12 years of UN sanctions. Some of early the complaints about electricity and water came when the US military started distributing them more evenly and the privileged sections Baghdad weren't getting more than their share anymore.

There was not shortage of palaces and statues of you-know-who. however.

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:07 PM

Fact: Saddam was a dictator, murderer and all around asshole.

Fact: The Iraqi people are immeasurably better with him gone.

Fact: Neither Saddam nor any of his minions were any danger whatsoever to the United States of America.

Fact: Neither Saddam nor any of his minions had anything at all to do with the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Fact: Absolutely nothing has been said by the Administration to prove otherwise.

Question: Exactly where did George W. Bush get off deciding to send hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and, incidently, spending billions of dollars that didn't belong to him, overthrowing Saddam?

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:47 PM

Honest Question..............Bearing in mind the insanity shown by Bush when he ordered your servicemen to go and attack an "enemy" for no apparent reason, are you now having difficulty recruiting soldiers/airforce/Navy personnel etc? Does anyone know if the recruit numbers have dropped?

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 06:09 PM

Fact: Bin Laden loathed Saddam Hussein every bit as much as Bush, and is undoubtedly rejoicing at his overthrow, and the opportunities for jihad against the occupation this has provided.

Fact: in various ways already Iraq is sigificantly less secularised than it had continued to be under Saddam (eg marriage and divorce are being pulled back from civil courts to Islamic law).

Fact: pressures on women to go veiled and keep out of public life are greater than before, and are building.

It could well be that when things finally settle down Iraq will indeed be a better place to live for ordinary people than it has been for many years. But it's early days, and it's an open question whether it will end up that way or not. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they say.

"When an unclean spirit goes out of a person it roams through arid regions searching for rest but finds none.

Then it says, 'I will return to my home from which I came.' But upon returning, it finds it empty, swept clean, and put in order.

Then it goes and brings back with itself seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they move in and dwell there; and the last condition of that person is worse than the first."

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 06:59 PM

Hey, Steve! Send In The Marines!! The knuckle-draggers'll straighten it all out- anonymously, of course.

Geraldo is first and foremost an asshole. All of a sudden he's a competent observer & commentator, when he adopts your point of view?

Gotta love it. Semper Pfoo.

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 21 Feb 04 - 01:41 AM

Artbrooks--succinct, absoutely in truth, and "spot on"!!
But, now--remember when we were all readiNg headlines like "where is he?" Well, where are the headlines NOW? When we want to know more than ever--where the hell is he? We DO know this---he hasn't been incarcerated in Guantanamo as a "security threat to the USA", like all those hundreds of others who were proven Al Qaeda members, or who simply resisted armed invasion. He is being, we are told, afforded treatment as accorded to a POW under the laws of the Geneva convention!I smell a rat with ears as big as an Indian elephant and a body [and long nose] to match. POW treatment must surely be giving Saddam retrospective disgust with himself for existing so long in yon dark wee hole in the ground! Just what are his captors doing with him? Are they trying to get him to look forward to a long and happily affluent life, provided he never opens his mouth about the WMDs supplied to him in large measure courtesy of the Reagan-Thatcher-Rumsfeld-Bush1 quads? Or is there a plan afoot which could involve the sudden advent of a fatal stroke or heart attack--or maybe a POW shot while trying to escape? One thing is sure---Saddam Hussein must NEVER be allowed to talk! Again---WHERE IS HE?

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 01:41 AM

Forget any Geraldo says--if you want to know about what is happening in Baghdad, check what real people who live there have to say--This blog, written by a young woman, will tell you about things you will likely have not heard about anywhere else Baghdad Burning the postings at the top are the latest--read down to go back in time--especially worthwhile for those of you who want to know if things are getting better--She has links to a number of other blogs, none of whom sound like Fox news--

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:15 PM

Instead of starting a new thread, I'll post here a link to a hard hitting commentary (not always fair, but amusing to read):

This moral vacuum on Iraq

the far left have awarded the alliance of the ex-Baathists and the Islamists the morally loaded nomenclature 'resistance'. ...
the Irish left, blinded by unthinking anti-Americanism, took the easy option.

Rather than listen to the demands of the Iraqi opposition desperate to free their country from Saddam's oppression, they retreated into the protest comfort zone, wrapping themselves up in the blankets of pacifism and worse still, self-righteous isolationism.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 04:05 PM

Ah, well, the media always report bad news. Doesn't matter what side of the political divide it's on. Do they report the buildings NOT burning in Chicago or Peoria? Do they report the skyscrapers NOT knocked down by airplanes in New York? Do they report the cops NOT killed in shootouts?

Nope.

Why be surprised how they treat news from Iraq. It's just the usual stuff they report, same as everywhere else. Got nothing to do with a conspiracy by the Left or the Right. It's marketing.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ are at stake, Norton1. $$$$$$$. Don't forget that. One thing that Democrats and Republicans are equally devoted to is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 04:31 PM

That really does strike me as a very confused piece in the Guardian Wolfgang linked to there. It swings back and forth between drawing rather strained analogies between Northern Ireland and Iraq, and pointing a finger at very selectively reported stuff about the actual attitudes expressed towards what is happening in Iraq at present.

Myself, I think that talking in terms of an overall "Resistance" in Iraq is misleading, not just because using that term is a value-loaded way of talking, but also because, pretty clearly, there are a lot of different sets of people engaged in these kinds of activities, with a range of agendas.

True enough, that's been the case in other "resistance" wars of course, such as in France during the war, but not to the same extent as here. It's more akin to lumping together the IRA and the UDA in the Irish context, and speaking of them as "the Resistance", which would clearly have been absurd.

It seems to me that there are some people in Iraq who are engaged in trying to get the Americans and their allies to pull out. The term "Resistance" is at least in principle applicable to them -which doesn't in any way mean they are a nice bunch (but then, nor were the French Resistance in many ways. That's how things work in that kind of war.)

But for the people who are trying to attack Shi'ite targets, with the aim of stirring up a Civil War, it seems likely to me that their objective is to suck the Americans ever deeper into a military quagmire in Iraq, with the object of weakening them elsewhere, and pushing them into the kind of over reaction which will strengthen the forces opposing them. Iraq is just another chess piece to be sacrificed for the overall objective.

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:45 AM

Really doesn't bode well for someone to post something that does not agree with you folk's view does it.

I'm sorry that you are all felt the need to be so vicious in your responses. And that you think so little of this. If my views were colored by only this article perhaps there would be grounds for the character assasination. I've had family there and have many friends there. I don't know if they qualify as "knuckle draggers" but they are Americans doing what they believe to be correct considering the circumstances.

Greg F - I'm sorry you are so bent on being angry and upset with me personally. I'm not so sure what I've done but whatever it was my sincerest apologies to you. I hope your day goes well -

Little Hawk - I am always clear about money being the motivating factor - and you are correct that neither party can claim a clear moral victory in any of the goings on in the last many years.

My intent was to try and show a bit of positive in such a negative situation. I cannot undo the past but am of the opinion that a focus on the present, and hopefully the good, that comes from humans interfacing with other humans can bring about positive change.

Be well

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 09:09 PM

Steve:

Personally I am glad for every pipeline or power grid that gets built. Given what it has been like for the people in and around Baghdad both before during and after the invasion, every little bit of positive construction and restoration helps. These are important peopole and they need the boost. Then I think we should get them back in charge of their own ground and get the hell outta there!! :>)

Thanks for the positive note.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:11 AM

In regards to the positive, Steve, there were front page headlines in Canada today about Iraquis signing the first draft of their new constitution. That is a significant piece of positive news for a change. I hope it works for them.

Most people tend to be strictly partisan when it comes to politics (or religion). That can make them pretty strident. It helps to have the ability to laugh at the foibles of your own chosen side as well as the other, and I try to work on that ability. I see lots of hypocrisy on both the Left and the Right. And I see sincere, decent people on both sides too, though I tend more to favour the Left on the whole.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 11:22 AM

I'm sorry that you all felt the need to be so vicious in your responses.>/I>

I've just skimmed through the thread again, Steve, looking for those vicious responses. There didn't seem to be enough to could possibly justify that very all-encompassing complaint. Sceptical, maybe, but vicious???

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM

My apologies McGrath - my wording was not accurate - Thanks for pointing that out. A FEW viscious responses with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Not that anyone would nit-pick here *G*

Subject: RE: BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:50 PM

Now "viscous" - that would be appropriate when dealing with such sticky problems!