Redskins Diehard Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I received this e-mail from a "parrot trooper" friend of mine this morning. His comments are in blue. I'm not sure where this article first appeared. ================================================================= I don’t usually send this stuff, but if you have the time this article is pretty funny (and true). I had the same experience in Iraq…day to day we were out and about, then I would see the news and wonder what war they were reporting on. Jim DUDE, WHERE'S MY CIVIL WAR? March 5, 2006 -- BAGHDAD I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it. Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills. And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis. Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops. All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None. And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome. Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward. Think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intended that? In place of the civil war that elements in our media declared, I saw full streets, open shops, traffic jams, donkey carts, Muslim holiday flags - and children everywhere, waving as our Humvees passed. Even the clouds of dust we stirred up didn't deter them. And the presence of children in the streets is the best possible indicator of a low threat level. Southeast Baghdad, at least, was happy to see our troops. And we didn't just drive past them. First Lt. Clenn Frost, the platoon leader, took every opportunity to dismount and mingle with the people. Women brought their children out of their compound gates to say hello. A local sheik spontaneously invited us into his garden for colas and sesame biscuits. It wasn't the Age of Aquarius. The people had serious concerns. And security was No. 1. They wanted the Americans to crack down harder on the foreign terrorists and to disarm the local militias. Iraqis don't like and don't support the militias, Shia or Sunni, which are nothing more than armed gangs. Help's on the way, if slowly. The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week. And the people trust their new army to an encouraging degree. The Iraqi police aren't all the way there yet, and the population doesn't yet have much confidence in them. But all of this takes time. And even the police are making progress. We took a team of them with us so they could train beside our troops. We visited a Public Order Battalion - a gendarmerie outfit - that reeked of sloth and carelessness. But the regular Iraqi Police outfit down the road proved surprisingly enthusiastic and professional. It's just an uneven, difficult, frustrating process. So what did I learn from a day in the dust and muck of Baghdad's less-desirable boroughs? As the long winter twilight faded into haze and the fires of the busy shawarma stands blazed in the fresh night, I felt that Iraq was headed, however awkwardly, in the right direction. The country may still see a civil war one day. But not just yet, thanks. Violence continues. A roadside bomb was found in the next sector to the west. There will be more deaths, including some of our own troops. But Baghdad's vibrant life has not been killed. And the people of Iraq just might surprise us all. So why were we told that Iraq was irreversibly in the throes of civil war when it wasn't remotely true? I think the answers are straightforward. First, of course, some parties in the West are anxious to believe the worst about Iraq. They've staked their reputations on Iraq's failure. But there's no way we can let irresponsible journalists off the hook - or their parent organizations. Many journalists are, indeed, brave and conscientious; yet some in Baghdad - working for "prestigious" publications - aren't out on the city streets the way they pretend to be. They're safe in their enclaves, protected by hired guns, complaining that it's too dangerous out on the streets. They're only in Baghdad for the byline, and they might as well let their Iraqi employees phone it in to the States. Whenever you see a column filed from Baghdad by a semi-celeb journalist with a "contribution" by a local Iraqi, it means this: The Iraqi went out and got the story, while the journalist stayed in his or her room. And the Iraqi stringers have cracked the code: The Americans don't pay for good news. So they exaggerate the bad. And some of them have agendas of their own. A few days ago, a wild claim that the Baghdad morgue held 1,300 bodies was treated as Gospel truth. Yet Iraqis exaggerate madly and often have partisan interests. Did any Western reporter go to that morgue and count the bodies - a rough count would have done it - before telling the world the news? I doubt it. If reporters really care, it's easy to get out on the streets of Baghdad. The 506th Infantry Regiment - and other great military units - will take journalists on their patrols virtually anywhere in the city. Our troops are great to work with. (Of course, there's the danger of becoming infected with patriot- ism . . .) I'm just afraid that some of our journalists don't want to know the truth anymore. For me, though, memories of Baghdad will be the cannoneers of the 1st Platoon walking the dusty, reeking alleys of Baghdad. I'll recall 1st Lt. Frost conducting diplomacy with the locals and leading his men through a date-palm grove in a search for insurgent mortar sites. I'll remember that lieutenant investigating the murder of a Sunni mullah during last week's disturbances, cracking down on black-marketers, checking up on sewer construction, reassuring citizens - and generally doing the job of a lieutenant-colonel in peacetime. Oh, and I'll remember those "radical Shias" cheering our patrol as we passed by. Ralph Peters is reporting from Forward Operating Base Loyalty, where he's been riding with the 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 :laugh: he said parrot trooper... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060307-12619.html It's instructive to take note of several things that have happened in Iraq since the bombing of the shrine that must be disappointing to those who seek a civil war. First, the Iraqi security forces have taken the lead in controlling the situation. Coalition forces assisted in a supporting role, according to General Casey. And second, the Iraqi government leaders took a number of key steps that have had a calming effect in the situation. They imposed a curfew, and the leaders of most of the major parties have stepped forward to publicly urge restraint on all parties. From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation, according to General Casey. The number of attacks on mosques, as he pointed out, had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized in some instances. And I guess that is to say nothing of the apparently inaccurate and harmful reports of U.S. military conduct in connection with a bus filled with passengers in Iraq. Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side. It isn't as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues. On the contrary, the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq. And then I notice today that there's been a public opinion poll reporting that the readers of these exaggerations believe Iraq is in a civil war -- a majority do, which I suppose is little wonder that the reports we've seen have had that effect on the American people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Was this before of after the commander of the Iraqi forces was assassinated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 :laugh: he said parrot trooper... :laugh: You liked that didn't you!!! Was that serious or a joke in the other thread? I remember when I was a kid there was a ride at Kings Dominion called the "Parrot Troopers", it may still be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 the editors at the New York Times are so upset that there has not been a total bloodbath with our troops getting caught in the middle. Poor babies :cuss: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 You liked that didn't you!!! Was that serious or a joke in the other thread? I remember when I was a kid there was a ride at Kings Dominion called the "Parrot Troopers", it may still be there. I only caught the end of the other thread. So I have no clue if he was serious when he typed that. As far as my response in that thread, I was joking. But I do take pride in being a "parrot trooper" (as I am sure that you do as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I don't think anybody WANTS a civil war. But, you'd be kidding yourself if you don't think one is happening right now. Iraqi's are attacking Iraqi's. What do you call that? Insurgents v Terrorists? Freedom Fighters v Al-queda? What? What we are doing, is taking different groups of people who by natural DON'T want to work together, and trying to force it. These folks have never lived together peacefully without an other country, or dictator ruling them. I'm sorry, but maybe its not such a bad idea that Iraq gets split up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwpanic Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 the editors at the New York Times are so upset that there has not been a total bloodbath with our troops getting caught in the middle. Poor babies :cuss: do you seriously believe that anyone at the ny times is hoping that more american troops are killed? i thought their whole agenda was to get our troops out of iraq and back home safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 do you seriously believe that anyone at the ny times is hoping that more american troops are killed? i thought their whole agenda was to get our troops out of iraq and back home safely. without commenting on the first question. i think their whole agenda is to sell newspapers and any concern for "troops" is secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I don't think anybody WANTS a civil war.But, you'd be kidding yourself if you don't think one is happening right now. Iraqi's are attacking Iraqi's. What do you call that? Insurgents v Terrorists? Freedom Fighters v Al-queda? What? What we are doing, is taking different groups of people who by natural DON'T want to work together, and trying to force it. These folks have never lived together peacefully without an other country, or dictator ruling them. I'm sorry, but maybe its not such a bad idea that Iraq gets split up. Don't let reason get in the way of rhetoric Bufford. There's nothing wrong in Iraq. This plan isn't clearly based on faulty premises. The New York Times are obviously behind all of the terrorist attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumrunner6900 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 without commenting on the first question. i think their whole agenda is to sell newspapers and any concern for "troops" is secondary. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: "If it bleeds, it leads...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 There are two things you can't defeat. Human Nature, and Mother Nature. As far as the media wanting blood. Why do you think Foxnews is still talking about the girl from Aruba. They want blood, but their Republican bosses tell them to not to focus on the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 There are two things you can't defeat.Human Nature, and Mother Nature. As far as the media wanting blood. Why do you think Foxnews is still talking about the girl from Aruba. They want blood, but their Republican bosses tell them to not to focus on the war. Fox News primary goal is to sell commercial airtime, any concern for the girl in Aruba is secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 the editors at the New York Times are so upset that there has not been a total bloodbath with our troops getting caught in the middle. Poor babies :cuss: Don't be an idiot. FOX news reported on the civil war as well as all your Republican news "sources." Not only did FOX news report that there was a high possibility of a civil war, they actually had the cajones to suggest a civil war in Iraq is a good thing. This was not some kind of liberal media hoax. The NY Times does not want our troops to die, in fact, they value your lives more than the people who started this war in Iraq. That is why we are against the war, because we don't want you folks to die for this. In our opinion, your 2300 lives are worth more than capturing Saddam, finding out the UN was right about his WMD's, or establishing a Democracy in Iraq. In Bush's opinion, losing all those lives was worth it so you see he actually values your life less than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Don't let reason get in the way of rhetoric Bufford. There's nothing wrong in Iraq. This plan isn't clearly based on faulty premises. The New York Times are obviously behind all of the terrorist attacks. Everything is not rosy in Iraq...but what I see on tv is not what I experienced. That was the point of the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Fox News primary goal is to sell commercial airtime, any concern for the girl in Aruba is secondary. I think that they're doing fine selling ads. Roger Ailes has an agenda though, no doubt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 After FOX news reported that the civil war in Iraq was a good thing they reported on he very same show (Cavuto) that it was all made up by the liberal media. I guess that second show is the only one you right wingers saw (or at least that's all you remember). The level of hypocrisy is incredible. FOX news has got you right-wingers all so confused about this war and the supposed liberal media you don't know which way is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 This is one of the issues I have with the coverage of Iraq: Either it's "OMG, the country is falling apart!!!111!!," or its "Everything is GREAT and wonderful in Iraq, screw them liberals!" I suspect it is somewhere in between: We have had success, and we have had failures. There are some regions where the environment is calm, business is building and booming, and the populace feels safe, while, in other regions, IEDs randomly explode every day and militias have de facto control of entire towns in peripheral areas. And this is especially true if you contrast certain regions - say the Kurdish north and the Sunni-supported West. There also appears to be odd contrasts : It's relatively calm in the South and British controlled region, but on the other hand, religious fundamentalists have take control, often by vote, and they are imposing Sharia law upon the women (and creating a mini-Iran). So, it is a success and failure all wrapped into an odd American/British supported fundamentalist package. I also read blogs by troopers in Iraq, and they'll say as much - one day, things may be fine, and the next, you are getting a mortar shell launched at you or an IED blows up the vehicle in front of you. Either folks are smiling at you, or they are scowling at you, making you wonder if they are going to RPG your butt. I can't imagine the daily tension and swing of emotions that environment must be like for some of these fighting guys and gals. So, I don't always put a lot of stock into stories posted by either the New York Times who paint sheer misery or by "first hand" accounts posted by folks who want to prove that everything is peachy and A-OK. I am sure everything is both miserable and peachy - that's Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 After FOX news reported that the civil war in Iraq was a good thing they reported on he very same show (Cavuto) that it was all made up by the liberal media. I guess that second show is the only one you right wingers saw (or at least hat's all you remember). The level of hypocrisy is incredible. FOX news has got you guys all so confused about his war and the supposed liberal media you don't know which way is up. Who turned this into a Fox News thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 What he said. Fairly accurate assesment in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Who turned this into a Fox News thread? The very first post on this thread is about how this uninformed troop thinks the liberal media wants there to be a civil war in Iraq. Turns out the Republican media wanted civil war so the guy is dead wrong. It's entirely relevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumrunner6900 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 The very first post on this thread is about how this uninformed troop thinks the liberal media wants there to be a civil war in Iraq. Turns out the Republican media wanted civil war so the guy is dead wrong. It's entirely relevent. Hate to point this out, but the first mention of the word "liberal" comes in one of your posts...I believe it was just referring to NYT. Edit: Post # 15 to be exact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 before the thread jackers came in and started talking about the evils of Fox News, I would just like to point out that the point of the story is "where is the Civil War in Iraq that was being reported by the media?" and some Sunnis and some Shias killing each other is NOT a civil war in a country of 27 million people. You do realize that over 20,000 Americans are murdered each year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Hate to point this out, but the first mention of the word "liberal" comes in one of your posts...I believe it was just referring to NYT.Edit: Post # 15 to be exact Yeah, but the first mention of the media was by AFC, slamming the NYT. before the thread jackers came in and started talking about the evils of Fox News, Funny - you bring up the media, Midnight totally devasteds FOX and now HE is hijacking? Hmmm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.