One Soldier's Viewpoint of Iraq

by ThiChi 92 Replies latest social current

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Of course, the following URLs won't change the opinions of the people they are directed at - but what would, eh?

    They will however afford the "pinko-loving commie bastards" on this board a great laugh at the expense of people who think FOX is in anyway worthwhile as a newsource - unless one uses 'confirms previously held beliefs' as a criteria in selecting a news source.

    The first one is about how biased FOX are. Of course, if the information contained in it is inaccurate, any dispute over the accuracy of it's conclusions should specifically address the facts cited in reaching these conclusions; foaming at the mouth and saying and "no it doesn't" the does nothing. If you are going to accuse FAIR of bias, please provide evidence of this.

    The second one is just a general list of stuff about the bastion of journalistic integrity that is FOX, and the final one about who we actually get the inofmration from regarding Iraq.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Oh, this bit's so good it's worth highlighting;

    For example, 33 percent of Fox News viewers incorrectly believed it was true that the U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; only 11 percent of people who said they relied on PBS or NPR for news got this wrong. Thirty-five percent of the Fox viewers thought that world opinion favored the U.S. invasion of Iraq; only 5 percent of those who get their news from PBS or NPR had this misconception. And an overwhelming 67 percent of those who relied on Fox thought that the U.S. had found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had worked closely with Al Qaeda; if you got your news from PBS/NPR, you had just a 16 percent chance of believing this falsehood.

    In Fox's defense, viewers of CNN and the broadcast networks, particularly CBS, were not much better informed. But on three major questions central to the debate about Iraq, Fox viewers were the most likely to get it wrong.

    So, if FOX is so good, how come it's viewers have such wrong ideas? ARe they all stupid and credulous? Or are they being taken in by a deceptive media machine?

  • donkey
    donkey
    To sit there and accuse this guy of being a liar while he's putting his life on the line for all of us is disgusting

    Well I cannot agree with that statement.

    The soldier may FEEL and you may FEEL that being in Iraq is putting his life on the line for US. There is no need to be in Iraq. The soldier is putting his life on the line for the beliefs and proaganda of the current administration. I do not feel as though any of the soldiers have their life on the line for me because I see no threat to myself of my country from Iraq.

    Further if there were a threat from Iraq we could question the need to put US soldiers lives on the line when we have technology to exterminate the problem.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Yup donkey, we're agreeing again ;

    So, people risking their lives in war are immune to propoganda and never lie?

    If someone is a serving soldier in action, he is to be trusted in all things?

    Of course not. He or she is as likely to be wrong as the next person, and is no more honest either.

    BUT, if someone thought there was a direct danger to the USA from Iraq, say because of distorted coverage on FOX, then they would see saying anything bad about soldiers there as wrong, as they were there defending the USA and should be supported.

    This is why the right-wing in the USA have used their propoganda machines so effectively. People believe what you tell them. We were Dubs, we should know this. If what you tell them makes them feel the government is right, they will defend the government, even if the government is wrong. Only those who access information outside of that controlled by right-wing supporters will be able to make informed descisons using a full data set, and only a minority of people pursue this actively.

    It's the mushroom model of government; keep them in the dark and feed them shit.

    But I am not a fun guy...

  • donkey
    donkey

    lol Ab,

    Please do not mistake my prior post as any sign of disrespect for our soldiers. They are for the most part awesome.

    On the other hand please be assured that I am disrespectful of the administration and will be the same way if Kerry wins too. Soldiers are toys for political phuck-wads.

  • Simon
    Simon
    On the other hand please be assured that I am disrespectful of the administration and will be the same way if Kerry wins too. Soldiers are toys for political phuck-wads.

    I agree with this although you'd hope that someone who has actually served in combat would have a better insight of what goes on and would not be so quick or eager to commit other people to the battle field for questionable causes.

    If you have to really, really, really argue the case to go to war and still don't convince people then guess what? YOU SHOULDN'T BE GOING TO WAR !

  • donkey
    donkey

    Simon,

    I am afraid it's the way it's always been. The only way I will ever fight for my country is if we are directly attacked - as we were at 9/11. Iraq has zero to do with 9/11 IMO.

  • Simon
    Simon

    I think if we passed a rule that anyone wanting to start a war had to go in the front lines for at least a week, that we'd probably see a suddent desire for peace ... you know, how real leaders used to do it - by leading. (Alexander, Ceasar etc ...)

  • WhyNow2000
    WhyNow2000

    Thank you for the info....but NICE TRY!

    Source:http://www.orwelliantimes.com/2004/04/26.html

    The email sure has a lot of the earmarkings of right-wing propoganda -- ignore any information which doesn't support your position, slam the media, misinform, make unfair attacks on the opposition and asking to spread the word.

    This morning (Monday) I spoke with Lt. Col. Gregory O. Hapgood, the Public Affairs Officer for the Iowa National Guard. He told me that Sgt. Ray Reynolds exists. Lt. Col. Hapgood told me that he received an email this morning from Sgt. Reynolds which confirmed Sgt. Reynolds wrote the email. While we talked about the contents of the email, I did not confirm that every word in the email I received was written by Sgt. Reynolds. Nonetheless, for the most part, the email appears to be an authenticate communication from one of our soldiers.

    Contrary to the information in the email I received, Sgt. Reynolds is not a medic. He does communications work. In fact, the 234th Signal Battalion's "mission is to provide wide area communications support in a theater of operations."[ * ] Sgt. Reynolds' civilian job is as a police officer.

    Lt. Col. Hapgood told me these were Sgt. Reynolds' sources for the information in the email:

    While the email appears to provide some truthful information, it is replete with misinformation. I don't have time to check each representation in the email, but here's an overview:

    • Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations

    This is interesting. A lot of kids have been immunized in Iraq. In fact, last year the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) "25 million doses of vaccines to Iraq to help prevent the spread of polio, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and tuberculosis -- considered the main killers of children in developing countries."[*] At the time, UNICEF spokesman Gordon Weiss explained that the children of Iraq would need several stages of repeated immunizations for the immunizations to be effective:

    "Iraq is in a particularly delicate stage at the moment -- postwar, with a lot of the health system having broken down and a lot of the water systems having broken down, as well. So children are more than ever this year vulnerable to water-borne diseases. Usually you don't vaccinate just once, you vaccinate a number of times in order to have the vaccinations work."[*]

    Here's what the Fact Sheet says:

    "USAID has partnered with UNICEF, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Abt Associates to support health program in Iraq. Since the end of the war, USAID has vaccinated three million Iraqi children under the age of five, administered tetanus vaccine to more than 700,000 pregnant women, and by April 30, 2004 the USAID mission will have provided updated vaccinations to 90 percent of pregnant women and children under five years of age."

    Hmmm. UNICEF said that 3 1/2 million Iraqi children were vaccinated last year. Does this mean that the vaccination program is not being pursued as much as last year? I don't know.

    I also don't know where the 400,000 number came from. Last year, Iraq had approximately 4.2 million children in Iraq under the age of five. If fewer than 10% of young Iraqi children have up-to-date immunizations out of the millions who have been on an immunization schedule and are exposed, that would seem to be a serious failure.

    That being said, hundred of thousands of immunized children has got to be a good thing.

    • The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

    Nonsense. First, there's nothing in the Fact Sheet about oil. Iraq is presently exporting approximately 1.9 million barrels of oil a day, or under 60 million barrels per month. And that's going to be difficult to maintain. You probably already know that insurgent attacks have been limiting the exports.[*] In August -- the supposed 2 billion barrel month -- Iraq was expecting to export fewer than 1.2 million barrels a day, about 37 million barrels for the month.[*]

    • Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time
      ever in Iraq.

    Here's what the Fact Sheet says:

    "Iraq has 13 major wastewater facilities. Baghdad's three facilities are currently inoperable and comprise three quarters of the nation's sewage treatment capacity. Raw waste flows directly into the Tigris River. In the rest of the country, most wastewater treatment facilities were only partly operational before the conflict, and a shortage of electricity, parts, and chemicals has exacerbated the situation and only a few wastewater treatment plants are operational. Iraq's 140 major water treatment facilities operate at about 65 percent of the pre-war level of three billion liters a day."

    Water does appear to be getting to a lot more people. But, apparently, at a price. A witness from Basra last month claimed:

    "The [water] plant seems to be working well . . . This plant is up and going and provides water for a huge number of people. Someone is constructing a new plant to expand so that there is drinking water. I have not met anyone here yet despite the poverty who is not buying drinking water."[*]

    • The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

    Not true. According to the Fact Sheet, on March 11, 2004, power peaked at approximately 92% of "the pre-conflict generating level". ABC reports that power generation is off since last October and is averaging somewhere around pre-conflict generation.[*]

    • 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.

    Not true. The Fact Sheet provides no information about this. But, the Washington Post on March 5, 2004 reported[*]:

    "Health Minister Khudair Fadhil Abbas said about 90 percent of the hospitals and clinics have been brought back to the same poor conditions as before the war but that the others will take more time to reach even that low level."

    Here are the first few paragraphs from the article:

    "The stout woman, covered from head to toe in a black abaya, shuffled into the crowded hospital. She went straight to the emergency room and opened her robe to reveal a tiny baby wrapped in fuzzy blankets. The boy had been born prematurely, and the family was afraid he was going to die.

    Uday Abdul Ridha took a quick look and shook his head. The physician put his hands on the woman's shoulders in sympathy, but his words were blunt. "I'm sorry," he said. "We cannot help you. We don't have an incubator, and even if we did, we are short on oxygen. Please try another hospital."

    Scenes like this one at the Pediatric Teaching Hospital in Baghdad's Iskan neighborhood have become common in Iraq in recent months, as the health care system has been hit by a critical shortage of basic medications and equipment. Babies die of simple infections because they can't get the proper antibiotics. Surgeries are delayed because there is no oxygen. And patients in critical condition are turned away because there isn't enough equipment."

    • Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.

    False. In June, 2003, US authorities put a halt to local elections. We installed mayors and administrators of our choosing.[*]

    • Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

    I don't know how many Iraqi police are on duty, given widespread desertions.[*] But, we know how many police are in the New York Police Department -- 39,110.[*] According to the 2000 Census, NY City had a population of more than 8 million and covered an area of 320 square miles.[*] According to 1993 estimates, the population of Iraq is about 19,435,000.[*] Iraq is about the size of California, approximately 171,000 square miles.[*]

    Though New York, like any other big city, can be dangerous at times, armed insurgents aren't blowing people up daily. New York has about 1 police officer for every 205 residents. Iraq -- which does have armed insurgents blowing people up daily -- has about 1 police officer for every 324 citizens.

    • Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

    Not true. The Fact Sheet says that before we invaded 1.2 million Iraqis had "subscribed to landline telephone service." As of March 9, 2004, "104,680 subscribers to the Iraqi landline phone network were reconnected." Repairs have reconnected some form of telephone service between Baghdad and 20 other cities.

    • Girls are allowed to attend school.

    True, but not because of the invasion. Girls were allowed to attend school during Saddam's rule. Between 1997-2000 82% as many girls attended primary school as did boys. 62% as many girls attended high school as did boys, during the same period.[*]

    The email is not informative, but disinformation. It's propaganda. While he did not cite any particular rule, Lt. Col. Hapgood said that members of the force are not to take a politically partisan stance in any communications they use in which they identify themselves as members of the force. Lt. Col. Hapgood, in essence, also said that it was improper for Sgt. Reynolds to attack Senator Kerry in his email.

    Thanks to Andrew Lazarus for his comment at dailyKos[*] for some fact checking leads.[*]

    UPDATE: Apparently, Lt. Col. Hapgood misinformed me about Sgt. Reynolds' civilian job. He's not a cop. He's a firefighter. This is how Sgt. Reynolds responds to inquiries about his message: "I did write it and I am in Kuwait now on my way home. I wrote it while at home because I felt that too many people were exploiting the violence in Iraq to sell papers and gain votes. Sometimes the silent majority need to be awakened to respond to the bad things in our world. I am passionate about our President's decision and support this rebuilding whole heartedly...Yes legit..I am a fire fighter in Denison, Iowa and to verify, call Mike McKinnon of the Denison Iowa fire department." Too bad that the Sergeant's passion got ahead of his control of the facts.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    I don't understand; if it was true and right and good, why would people have to lie and twist and deceive in order to justify things?

    Good thing we have the Bush supporters out there to tell us what's really happening...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit