Odd place to get this from but here it is:

 

 

Iraq's Golden Silence

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 01, 2007 4:20 PM PT

 

Media And War: Ever since the Sept. 10 testimony of Gen. David Petraeus, we've heard less and less from the mainstream media about the war in Iraq. The old adage "no news is good news" has never been truer.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Related Topics: Media & Culture | Iraq

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

That the media are no longer much interested in Iraq is a sure sign things are going well there. Instead, they're talking about the presidential campaign, or Burma, or global warming, or . . . whatever.

 

Why? Simply put, the news from Iraq has been quite positive, as Petraeus related in his report to Congress. Consider:

 

• On Monday came news that U.S. military deaths in Iraq fell to 64 in September, the fourth straight drop since peaking at 121 in May and driving the toll to a 14-month low.

 

• Civilian deaths also have plunged, dropping by more than half from August to 884. Remember just six months ago all the talk of an Iraqi "civil war"? That seems to be fading.

 

• The just-ended holy month of Ramadan in Iraq was accompanied by a 40% drop in violence, even though al-Qaida had vowed to step up attacks.

 

• Speaking of al-Qaida, the terrorist group appears to be on the run, and possibly on the verge of collapse — despite making Iraq the center of its war for global hegemony and a new world order based on precepts of fundamentalist Islam.

 

• Military officials say U.S. troops have killed Abu Usama al-Tunisi, a Tunisian senior leader of al-Qaida in Iraq who was responsible for bringing foreign fighters into the country. Not surprisingly, the pace of foreign fighters entering Iraq has been more than halved from the average of 60 to 80 a month.

 

• Last month, 1,200 Iraqis waited patiently in line in Iraq's searing heat to sign up to fight al-Qaida. They will join an estimated 30,000 volunteers in the past six months — a clear sign the tide has turned in the battle for average Iraqis' hearts and minds.

 

• Finally, and lest you think it's all death and destruction, there's this: Five million Iraqi children returned to school last week, largely without incident, following their summer vacations.

 

None of this, of course, is accidental. The surge of 28,500 new troops announced by President Bush last February, and put in place in mid-June by Gen. Petraeus, seems to have worked extraordinarily well. Al-Qaida, though still a potent foe capable of committing mass atrocities, has been backpedaling furiously.

 

"They are very broken up, very unable to mass, and conducting very isolated operations" is how Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson described al-Qaida's situation in comments this week.

 

Things have gone so well, in fact, that leading Democratic contenders have stopped calling for a "timetable" for withdrawal and can't even promise they'll remove all the troops by 2013.

 

In short, the U.S. is — yes, we'll use the word —winning the war against al-Qaida. And not just in Iraq. In fact, the only way we won't win is if we do something very stupid — such as letting the overwhelmingly negative media convince us we can't do what we clearly are doing.

 

 

 

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276131413423304

 

 

 

What do you guys think? Keeping in mind of course it is an American article so like with all news stories depending on if they are right or left it's got to have some bias in it.

Edited October 5, 200717 yr by Snazzy

I don't believe the Iraqi conflict however they spin it has become another Vietnam. I'm inclined to take this report with a grain of salt and assume its designed to give it the best possible spin but I think there's truth in it. However I hardly believe that al-Qaida is "possibly on the verge of collapse" that's a very well placed possibly far as I'm concerned.

 

Short and simple I think that the average Iraqi is better off now then he was 5 years ago and if this trend continues in another 5 years things can only get better.

Edited December 10, 200717 yr by cm.

Didn't the US military try to use "body count" statistics to prove they were winning in Vietnam?

They certainly did Dog.

 

I'm with Vis, a grain of salt. As for AlQeada, they could be on the verge of collapsing. You guys as an example are kicking some ass in Afganistan and they can't move in the open without being spotted and taken out.

 

I hope that this article is correct though. It would be nice to have a good conclusion to this god awful mess.

Do any of you guys get to see the Fox News cable channel? It provides an insight into how the left and right wing US media report on the war and their attempts to influence the public's thinking.

 

While on the subject, is anyone else dissapointed with the 'news' that our free-to-air channels provide? For example, as important as the AFL grand final was to many people I find it quite ridiculous that channel 7 would spend most of their air time on that. I doubt that 'Geelong fans partying after the event' was the most important event to happen in the world that day.

lol rogue!

 

The media is certainly messed up. It's so hard walking through life not being able to believe anything anyone in politics or media at times. Really I just would love a straight no bs story with no agenda just a story on EXACTLY what is going on.

Watch SBS then. Seriously, its so much more informative than the crap 7, 9 and 10 do and theres practically no sports news unless its a grand final or something

Edited October 5, 200717 yr by Fang

What do you guys think? Keeping in mind of course it is an American article so like with all news stories depending on if they are right or left it's got to have some bias in it.

 

What do I think?

 

To put it bluntly I think that piece can only be described as a fanciful work of fiction. It is so full of outright lies and mistruths I wondered if it was a

parody .

 

If I had any hair left it would make me pull it out. :blowup:

 

 

 

 

:hi:

Lies, I think not.

 

People are joining the army to fight. Kids are going to school and the fatality rate has indeed dropped.

 

Twisted truth, most certainly or at the very least a scewed bias.

Edited October 5, 200717 yr by Snazzy

its sounds like Pentagon/republican spin.

 

I mean how is it good news that "only" 64 American military personal were killed in Sept.

They are soldiers at war, they are going to get shot at. 64 in September is great considering it's been double that. Also considering they have been at war for 6 years now, the death toll for American soldiers is amazingly light.

 

For the spin, the reason I found it interesting is where I got the article. It's not really a political sort of publication as far as I know.

 

I hope the article has more truth than spin as it seems to be a good sign if it's true! Maybe this will turn out for the best one day. Time will tell good or bad.

the death toll for American soldiers is amazingly light.

An interesting statistic I heard the other day re death tolls in america.

 

Soldiers killed in Iraq = 3800 since the war began.

Soldiers wounded in Iraq =28,000 since the war began.

Women who die of breast cancer in USA = 40,000 per year

 

1 yrs worth of govt money researching breast cancer = 2 days of military activity in Iraq.

 

Makes you think?

Wow, certainly does make you think. At least that has nothing to do with the military. They just do what they are told and they ask for the money they need to do the job.

 

For the funding of breast cancer or just cancer in general. I think I know why the statistic looks like that. You don't make money curing anything. The US has been pissed at Canada because we allow generic drugs without a name brand to be sold cheaply. Drug companies are extremely powerful lobby groups and I think some of the most evil people to have ever walked this planet. Why on earth are life saving drugs unaffordable when just North of the US in Canada you can get them at little cost. Those groups even tried to stop senior citizens of doing just that if they have not done so.

 

Has anyone seen that Sicko show? I haven't yet, is it any good?

Lies, I think not.

 

People are joining the army to fight. Kids are going to school and the fatality rate has indeed dropped.

 

Twisted truth, most certainly or at the very least a scewed bias.

 

I like to believe I keep an open mind so perhaps you could identify which points are true which are twisted truths and which are just biased statements in your opinion ?

 

 

:hi:

while I agree that everyone is entitled to,and allowed their own opinion....

u will have probably noticed that most previous threads along these lines have ended up locked....

Pls keep things "friendly" :gathering: :drinks: ..

(and be happy that we don"t live

there,cos I doubt we would enjoy it anymore than the people who do).

 

Internet access would be a bitch to start with......:director: :scare:

You guys do realise that, everyone Individually is always going to think "THEY" are right? its really pointless arguing over a topic like this lol.

You're right, it is pointless to argue in the sense that you lot always argue in. But if you guys were capable of having an actual discussion these threads might stay open a bit longer in future.

 

Tip: Testosterone fueled arguements are boring and make both parties look stupid. Yes thats right, you could actually be wrong for once. Shock horror. Try asking questions rather than screaming "YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!".

This one has not been a flame war!

 

Plate, the numbers of people going to school and the lines to join the armed forces are more or less accurate and the American deaths are definately accurate and so is the historical comparison.

 

The twisted and biased one for sure is the drop in foriegn fighters. Come on now, it's not like the Americans are sitting at the border counting them. That one has to be off.

 

Al Qeada and the Taliban really are on the run. We are making more and more advances in Iraq and Afganistan and they are getting an absolute pasting. Not every Arab is a crazy asshole so they can't keep it up forever. They are not putting up mass battles as often as they where in the past.

 

Ramadan, was indeed comparitivley quiet and there really was a lot of squaking about a stepped up offensive that didn't materialise.

 

Here, read this "18 Hours" by Sandra Lee, it's about some of your SAS in Afganistan in 02. Something you guys should be proud of, your SAS are doing a bloody amazing job!

 

Not many battles are being waged like that anymore.

 

In Vietnam the Americans lost because of home pressure and politics, that's the way they will lose now if some people have their way and then the Iraqi people will be in just a bad spot as they where under Saddam, if not worse. This would be a sad day indeed. I suppose right or wrong, we have to stay the course now.

 

Of course this is all just my opinion.

 

The last statement about winning that is a bias for sure as it's waaaaaay to early to say that ****.

In response to Vis' comments about Iraq becoming this century's Vietnam, I thought this article is worth a look -

 

http://counterpunch.org/lindorff10042007.html

@smoke

"• Speaking of al-Qaida, the terrorist group appears to be on the run, and possibly on the verge of collapse — despite making Iraq the center of its war for global hegemony and a new world order based on precepts of fundamentalist Islam."

Al Qaida is a cellular terrorist network not a military force, Its not "based" anywhere.

"A new world order " is what Western based political interest groups want.

 

"• Last month, 1,200 Iraqis waited patiently in line in Iraq's searing heat to sign up to fight al-Qaida. They will join an estimated 30,000 volunteers in the past six months — a clear sign the tide has turned in the battle for average Iraqis' hearts and minds."

What has enlistments of Iraqis into there police and armed forces got to do with fighting Al Qaida ? They havent signed up to fight Al Qaida.

The conflict in Iraq isnt with Al Qaida. Is an internal sectarian conflict !

 

This has to be the best bit in the article ("They are very broken up, very unable to mass, and conducting very isolated operations" is how Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson described al-Qaida's situation in comments this week.) made me giggle and also possible the only (apart from the unrelated "Five million Iraqi children returned to school last week") factual information. This description applied to Al Qaida prior to the USS Cole bombing in 2000. It will continue to apply to them , its the nature of a disperced cell based network. Its why Al Quida is so effective at what they do.

 

@admins

Smoke I and others are just having an articulate, inteligent and friendly discussion amongst online friends.

 

@others

Smoke I and others are just having an articulate, inteligent and friendly discussion amongst online friends. The fact that he is misinformed and wrong and I am informed and right just means my epenis is bigger than his.:kiss:

 

@Kindros

You can play too . :artist:

 

:hi:

The previous topics weren't locked because they had degenerated into a flame war. They were locked when the topics touched on subjects that may offend some forum members. I don't have a problem with that or deleting posts with personal attacks but I think that the majority of us are mature enough to discuss important issues and viewpoints. Lets try not to jump the gun when locking threads.

They are soldiers at war, they are going to get shot at. 64 in September is great considering it's been double that. Also considering they have been at war for 6 years now, the death toll for American soldiers is amazingly light.

 

For the spin, the reason I found it interesting is where I got the article. It's not really a political sort of publication as far as I know.

 

I hope the article has more truth than spin as it seems to be a good sign if it's true! Maybe this will turn out for the best one day. Time will tell good or bad.

 

Smokey...the point i was going for is, 64 dead Americans can only sound good...if u spin it.

 

"good news" story's as a rule, never involve dead people.

with the exceptions of Saddam, Osama etc.

Lets try not to jump the gun when locking threads.

 

There is no denying that all of the previous threads which touched on the high strung political topics of today quickly turned nasty. The admin team doesn't like locking thread or deleting posts but its all to often the only possible action we have left to us when the "discussions" turn into his epeen against my epeen contests. All we ask is that you consider how you phrase what it is you have to say and not to force your opinion on any one simply because they have a different standing to yourself.

 

The fact that no less than 3 admins have commented on this very issue I would assume should really push home the point. Remember these forums only real mission is to further the Reality gaming experience we already provide on the server. This isn't a forum designed for the discussion of politics and current affairs even though we all find these things interesting. Such it is that when we feel that these types of discussion are really getting people arked up that we close them. When you come to the forums you should find extra information about the games you play, new and better ways of playing these games and a fun enjoyable atmosphere. Not a number of high post, highly viewed threads that almost feel like there should be bookies sitting on the side lines taking beats on who will snap first.

 

Keep it reasonable, keep in calm and keep it fun and we won't need to lock threads or delete posts. With that said I will ask you all to leave this matter in the hands of the admin team and accept that we have the community's best interest in mind.

Smokey...the point i was going for is, 64 dead Americans can only sound good...if u spin it.

 

"good news" story's as a rule, never involve dead people.

with the exceptions of Saddam, Osama etc.

 

Now that is one hell of a good point!

 

I guess it's just trying to look on the bright side of a bad situation.

 

Al Qaida is a cellular terrorist network not a military force, Its not "based" anywhere.

"A new world order " is what Western based political interest groups want.

 

 

 

 

Al Qaida is not just a cell network. They have a very active militant wing as well and they are based wherever they can get away with setting up camp which is generally in Pakistan and Afganistan. Where else do you think the training videos come from?

 

New World Order, perhaps. Or perhaps you've watched The Skulls one time too many. There is a very good reason why Americans have the right to bear arms and that comment is exactly why.

 

In Australia if the government decides to create some dodgy new order there isn't a bloody thing you can do about it. In America where they have not been disarmed they can fight back, they have done it before and will do it again if need be.

Edited December 10, 200717 yr by cm.

I will read all these post soon smokey but I got to do SOME work, hehe. I found this and found it very informative, it is 7 years old and Aus has make some good move towards what it says, like ording 5 Airbus KC-30B Multi-Role Tanker Transports for 2009.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/cct-submission-pdf.pdf

 

here is the pdf in html, http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:9umMM8P15iMJ:www.ausairpower.net/cct-submission-pdf.pdf+cct-submission-pdf.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&client=firefox-a

 

"The massive and sustained military growth programs of both India and the

PRC, especially in conventional strategic power projection capabilities, have im-

portant consequences for the region. Within the coming decade, both India and

China will have the capability to project strategic air power into South East Asia.

Moreover, strategic bombers such as the Backfire have the range to cover the

Pilbara, Kimberley and Northern Territory from bases in Indian or Chinese terri-

tory. As it is very much in the long term strategic interests of both nations to

gain basing access within South East Asia, there is a high probability that one

or both of these nations will aim to politically, and later militarily, penetrate the

nearer region."

Edited December 10, 200717 yr by Pudgeinabowl