IRAQ WAR PICS UNRELEASED

socrates SG

I think TS is trying to point

Case in point, No True Glory by Bling West which details the battle of Fallujah, shows us quite clearly how the very news report that try to inspire us to end the war and highlight the human cost end up causing more death and destruction in the end.

Am I correct ? Embarassed

My personal opinion is that the topic is on the reason for the war and whether does the war cause more damage than helps. It is not on whether should the US leave now after they start the war. Furthermore I personally felt tat ignoring other reports and evidence, including the report from the US senate themselves in favor of a book of a single author (who is not the authority in this topic) and whose reference is not readily available (I do not have the book), maybe biased and get potential revenue from the sales of the book is not adequate.

I don't think it is hard for people to guess that I am against the war myself Mr. Green

stupidissmart SG

If its about fallujah then it is more absurb because I believe the war on fallujah is a sign tat the iraq war is an utter failure, not a sign tat the war is good.

freakass SG

Well, everyone is so affected by the pictures that no one realised the mistake except FI?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Aye, it's your folly and loss. If only you knew you were helping me, rather then actually making any dent on my position.

It's right there in front of you, it's not really that hard to find.

Look harder. Smile

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Fallujah eh?

I was thinking before SIS starts off about Fallujah, he ought to pick up his earlier blunder before starting another one. But I suppose it is in my advantage to let him wade deeper into it. Laughing

Socrates, anyway I was just pointing out one book that was a good read on the topic. Generation Kill is another nice read as well, for those who have been grunts before.

In the case of why I think books on the topic are a better read, is that you will find more solidified opinions that are less affected by the current state of affairs. But that's not hard to see why: you obviously get a clearer picture reading a book on the Tet Offensive then listening to the various news reports right there and then.

And there are no lack of books out there on Iraq now, from both camps (pro and anti war) and making their case for such. That said, I think the books are a provide a better read on the topic then our typical "IED of the Day" reports.

stupidissmart SG

I was thinking before SIS starts off about Fallujah, he ought to pick up his earlier blunder before starting another one. But I suppose it is in my advantage to let him wade deeper into it.

I was thinking of your sincerity in the topic because it seems to me tat u r relying nothing but low moves instead of sincere facts in proving your stand Rolling Eyes

Furthermore, I do not see why a single book holds more water than newspaper and official report from US gov. Furthermore my impression of the book is painting a grim picture on the whole attack on fallujah, and it supports my stand tat the war is a mistake and causing more problems to the whole world

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Shocked ... wah lau SIS, are you really serious in what you are posting or are you just joking along? Seriously, I am quite serious about answering your question but your latest post yet again makes this very difficult because you seem to miss entirely what I am talking about. It's like I talk about dog and you answer on dogfood. Surprised

While we are on reading...

Have you fully read the book (like I have)? And more importantly did I say to only read that book? Most importantly, can you read anything beyond what you hope to see?

Please reread my post on the books... Laughing

Really SIS, there's no need to be so reactionary. Not say I want to say you leh, but seriously ah...

stupidissmart SG

If u felt I have missed your point, (u have mentioned many), then maybe it will be kind of u to repeat wat I have missed out. Regarding your book, I only read is the online summary of the book. I have to say tat just because someone quote it to be good, I have to spend time and money to buy and read the whole book before I can comment. Your point is probably tat if the media do not sensationise the news, there will be less victims. Tis is not really valid because

1) the news, nevertheless is still accurate. U can say they put the figures too highly but then it seems to be as valid as the figures given by US themselves to have given the figure too lowly

2) U can not know whether will the number of victims be lesser or more because u never went through tat history and make a comparison with actual figures. It is simply personal guesswork

sand king SG

Sad but true.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I think the news figures are low actually at least in terms of insurgents killed. Bodycount aside, my main contention is not that the media gets their figures wrong, but more often then not their conclusions (or conclusions they imply) are often (in retrospect) not only wrong but disastrous for both sides in the conflict. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and often the journalists end up hurting the very people they are trying to help. People forget Tet all too fast and the pattern seems to repeat in every war.

Media was one thing in the book, but a lot went into detailing much of the stuff that the media missed out or didn't bother to find out about before changing public opinion with their reports. It details a lot of the dialogue and actions of the insurgents and the current Iraqi government, and is a real eye opener into what actually goes on behind all the IEDs and sectarian violence.

If you want to know why I think you missed my point: it was for the simple reason I read your replies and saw it quite clearly that you were missing quite largely what I have been trying to say (which is not really different from your point of view). If you weren't so openly antagonistic or paused for a moment to realize that I have no vested interest in engaging in unnecessary debate, you would have realized immediately that I am pointing out the rather pragmatic origins, causes and consequences of the war, which make a lot of any moral posturing on both sides moot to begin with.

Your replies imply and rely heavily on the premise that I am arguing for a moral high ground for the US- which was never my intention. I have no illusions about Bush's other motives for Iraq.

The difference is that I think these events will be an opportunity for the Iraqi people in the long run, while you feel that in the long run it would be better having Saddam around- which I somewhat doubt.

stupidissmart SG

If u read through the news articles, they do not give their conclusion, but provide a study for u to reach your own conclusion. Tat is wat how newspaper write its stuff isn't it ? They can show u pictures of catatrophic disaster and interview victims of the war, but u yourself r the one tat form the conclusion, not the news. And the pictures and interview with victims r not wrong but factually correct. If the region is prospering and peaceful, can the news provide the pictures or obtain the interview ?

For your book, obviously they r no different from newspapers. They provide interviews (so does newspaper. In fact for any declaration newspaper give the most updated information) they r biased (newspaper perhaps less biased because there r people who support the war and newspaper provide "good" newsto them) books have more pressure to sell (the pressure is lesser for journalist because the sales of the newspaper do not immediately affect them), books is limited because it is a one man show (many newspaper have a team of people). I do not see why newspaper report is not valid compared with books. U do not read newspaper ?

The difference is that I think these events will be an opportunity for the Iraqi people in the long run, while you feel that in the long run it would be better having Saddam around- which I somewhat doubt.

I think the main contention is rather u felt the spate of problems is caused by the Iraqis themselves and the US and their troops r victims. My view is tat the all the problems is caused by the US and Iraqis r the victims. If u read your earlier posts, they defended the actions of US while pushing all the blame to Iraqis for the situation they r in. Do I have to remind u of a notorious prison incident where picture have leaked to the public and caused an uproar ?

If u remember your reply on 06 December 2006 · 11:18 PM, u clearly push the reason for the war to Saddam and Bush just "response in the right way" by starting an invasion. Now wat is your view on the reason for the war ? U also mentioned about the WMD and from your posts, u believe tat Saddam do have them and it is a good thing to attack him before he uses them. However the report made for the senate in US clearly shows tat the intelligence is faulty, no evidence supports its conclusion and declares iraq has no WMD before the war. Wat is your view on tis matter now ?

When u talk about the present situation, u refer it to being better than the lives under saddam. However according to statistic, the rate of people killed increases after the war in a quadractic or exponential rate. The future looks bleak as well, and a civil war appears to be imminent, US may leave aruptly before anyone knew it, and no politician is denying these fact yet u seems to be optimistic tat life is better.

How is life better ?

davidche SG

Dont mess with SIS. Hes got substance.

jackc` SG

I say, that now Bush lost the House and Senate, he is going to explain a lot more about Iraq.

But it's all very distant to Sg.

What's disturbing is that Sg stood up and pledge support for this Iraq war, probably someone in the gahmen will stand up soon and clarify which parts they support.

e.g. the Iraq war support is not about WMDs but removing Saddam for all mankind.

you know the drill that they go through. they make very good public appearances and press conferences which is followed eagerly by all the Govt media companies.

« Previous Page