Good articles on the war situation in Iraq

[damgo]

Here's a list of some of the more informative articles I've read about the war in Iraq. These are reporting or analysis pieces, no editorials on whether the war is a good or bad idea.

Doubts and Questions: Slow Aid and Other Concerns Fuel Iraqi Discontent Toward United States
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_safwan030322.html

In Nasiriya, Marines Find an Urban Fight They Didn't Want
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/international/worldspecial/24CND-BATT.html

Time to stop being Mr Nice Guy
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/25/wfeda25.xml

Hackers cripple al-Jazeera sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2893993.stm

General: A Longer War Likely
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38166-2003Mar27.html

Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2440692

31 Marines wounded in An Nasiriyah friendly fire
http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0328war.html

UK aid ship docks at Iraqi port
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2894279.stm

C.I.A. Warned Pentagon of Guerrilla Tactics
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/i...00&en=ceee7f7175c51d8d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

A ‘turkey shoot,’ with Marine targets
http://www.msnbc.com/news/891868.asp?0cl=c3

And Now, the Good News
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/o...00&en=c5b29607d82fa039&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
(this last is an op-ed, but I realized the above articles were mostly emphasizing the problems)

 

[kat]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_765790.html?menu=

Saddam Hussein has sacked his commander of air defences after a series of surface-to-air missiles malfunctioned and landed on residential areas of Baghdad, Downing Street has claimed.The Prime Minister's official spokesman stopped short of saying that Iraqi missiles were responsible for explosions in two market places in the city this week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44925-2003Mar28.html

Gruesome details are emerging from Western intelligence sources regarding the tactics that Saddam Hussein's regime is using to maintain its control of southern Iraq. The stories suggest that while Hussein's forces are fighting more fiercely than expected, they are often doing so with a gun pointed at their head.

"Terror is playing a huge part" in how the war has evolved, according to one intelligence officer familiar with details of reports coming from Iraq.

The most striking example is the assassination Tuesday morning of the head of a major Shiite tribe in Basra, as part of the regime's efforts to stiffen resistance in that city to the advance of U.S. and British troops.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=iraq&s=easterbrook032803.1

Two U.S. Abrams M1 tanks have been knocked out by Iraqi forces, the first Abrams ever lost in combat......In both cases of Abrams hit by Kornets, the tank was disabled but the damage was limited enough that crews got out unharmed. (Most American anti-tank munitions are designed to set the insides of tanks on fire, leading to hellish death for crews.) At any rate, Iraq now has a weapon that can knock out an Abrams. This may mean trouble as U.S. and British forces approach Baghdad. It also means that other dictatorships around the world will hear the news and line up to buy this Russian product.

Because the Kornet was first fielded in 1994, obviously Iraq obtained it in violation of the U.N. embargo. A large shipment of Kornets was sold by Russia to Syria in 1998, so peace-loving Syria may be the violator. Some intelligence sources maintain that a few Kornets were also aboard the Karine A, the weapons ship intercepted on its way to the peace-loving Palestinian Authority.

 

[amp]

Heres a good one on the proiteering going on...

Cheney's gang the lead profiteers:

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd03292003.html

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by amp
Cheney's gang the lead profiteers:

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd03292003.html

Seriously, amp, do you really believe that kind of crap? Just look at the way it's written. The author is not only biased, but he appears to have a seething hatred for anything republican. How can you expect the article to be objective?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Alias
Seriously, amp, do you really believe that kind of crap? Just look at the way it's written. The author is not only biased, but he appears to have a seething hatred for anything republican. How can you expect the article to be objective?

Sure it is biased...but the facts are true, nevertheless. Ideol;ogy doesn't change facts, so calling someone a liberal doesn't make them wrong.

 

[amp]

Zero, its difficult to give Alias those kind of facts,

because she (I think) honestly believes the bul... er..um propaganda.

 

[damgo]

Halliburton actually pulled out of the bidding for some major contracts because of the criticism. :) Score! Of course, they'll just do subcontracting work instead, but that's a far sight better.

Battle for Baghdad Begins in Area Surrounding Iraqi Capital
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/i...00&en=2a5054c651d6ada9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

 

[amp]

Damgo, the criticism was probably from their competitors

after all Haliburton had more than two megamillion dollar contracts.

 

[damgo]

An article on the Halliburton stuff: http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp?0cv=KB10

In the last couple days, they've started bidding for subcontracting work: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20030402_600.html

 

[Alias]

Here's the first paragraph of the article you cite...

"Before the first cruise missile crushed the first skull of the first child killed in the first installment of George W. Bush's crusade for world dominion, the unelected plutocrats occupying the White House were already plying their corporate cronies with fat contracts to "repair" the murderous devastation they were about to unleash on Iraq. There was, of course, no open bidding allowed in the process; just a few "selected" companies--selected for their preponderance of campaign bribes to the Bushist Party, that is - "invited" to submit their wish lists to the War Profiteer-in-Chief."

First. A factual error... Bush was elected not selected. The polling results were cerified, by law. The fact that Gore wanted to recount certain precincts (that favored him) only, and that the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional does not negate the fact that Bush won the election. Whenever, I hear someone say that Bush was 'selected' and not elected, I know, right away, that they are the kind of people that view the world as they want to see it. Thus they have no credibility when discussing 'real facts'.

Second. Conspiracy theorist type supposition being passed off as objective truth. "just a few "selected" companies---selected for their preponderance of campaign bribes to the Bushist Party." Did the Bush campaign accept bribes? How do you know this? Or, are you just characterizing campaign contributions, and if so, then Gore was guilty of accepting bribes as well.

Third. "...Bush's crusade for world dominion..." I don't exactly know how to characterize this statement. It's just silly.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... it's probably a duck.

The article is basically a bunch of spew coming from the mouth of someone pissed-off his guy didn't win the election. To take any of the article seriously is simply a fools errand.

 

[damgo]

Before the first cruise missile crushed the first skull of the first child killed in the first installment of George W. Bush's crusade for world dominion, the unelected plutocrats occupying the White House were already plying their corporate cronies with fat contracts to "repair" the murderous devastation they were about to unleash on Iraq.

ROFL! Occasionally I read Counterpunch or Free Republic just for the humor value in rants like these.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
ROFL! Occasionally I read Counterpunch or Free Republic just for the humor value in rants like these.

Seriously, amp, do you really believe that kind of crap?

Sure it is biased...but the facts are true, nevertheless.

I had ignored this thread until now, but wow. I guess they really do believe that stuff, alias. Thats amazing. Bias clearly can make a person see whatever they want to see. I couldn't imagine reading more than the first sentence even for the humor value - its truly sick.

This whole forum is starting to seem a little useless to me. Particularly my thread on factual errors vs lies. I postulated that its not a lie if you really believe it, but that assumes that people really are capable of telling the difference. Not being able to tell the difference between fiction and reality is delusion. I guess I give people too much credit.

 

[damgo]

^^^ IMHO people (some) usually can, but they are rarely willing to admit it at the time, especially if they perceive the person who pointed out their error as an adversary. You have to give them a little time to mull and integrate the truth into the rest of their belief system (and also to save face! ), but eventually their position will often quietly shift.

It's a rare, rare sight to hear anyone say "you were right, I was wrong." Most of us humans aren't rational enough for that.

---

BTW -- No, I at least don't pay attention to things like that. I find it funny simply because it's so over-the-top, in a Modest Proposal sort of way. I do understand where they're coming from, though. In a similar way you might understand where Anne Coulter's rants are coming from, yet realize what she actually says is pretty ridiculous.

Free Republic a far-right-wing conservative discussion board BTW, for those who don't know. It's got some pretty good foaming-at-the-mouth-rants.

 

[damgo]

Rumsfeld 'resisting' Powell's Iraq team
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-632902,00.html

Saddam's masters of concealment dig in, ready for battle
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=393460

Survivors tell of checkpoint tragedy
http://www.msnbc.com/news/893527.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
^^^ IMHO people (some) usually can, but they are rarely willing to admit it at the time, especially if they perceive the person who pointed out their error as an adversary. You have to give them a little time to mull and integrate the truth into the rest of their belief system (and also to save face! ), but eventually their position will often quietly shift.

I've recently become far more jaded than that, damgo.