It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: U.S. Military Pays Iraqi Newspapers to Run Pro U.S. Stories

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
How many GOOD stories have you read in the newspaper in the last few years? Not freaking many. They so anxious to show all the bad things going on in the world, that they totally skip or bury the good news stories. I've found out a lot of the good things going on in Iraq, or other places by reading threads here, and finding links to more stories on the different pages in the threads. Do you really think journalists in Iraq aren't going to see how our papers are, and copy them to some degree? This is probably new to them, being able to report anything they want about anyone. If the only way for the US to get good news in the paper to counter all the bad propaganda is to buy it, then so be it. What choice do we have?




posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I'm sick to death of people making excuses for the USA lowering its standards to the level of the 'enemy' because "They do it, too"! or "They started it"! or "They did it first"! or "It's been that way for a long time"!


I'm just sick of people forgetting what this country is about! Where's your pride? Where's your patriotism? Do you have no honor and integrity? Do you know what those words mean? How can you think it's OK to pay off the media to print only the good stuff??

I don't know where this attitude came from. When did 'winning' become more important than integrity? When did manipulation become valuable than honor?

I'm just ashamed, I don't kow what else to say.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When did 'winning' become more important than integrity?

For the people actually fighting and dying, winning has allways been the utmost concern. Its also not the concern of a government to have integrity, its supposed to get the job done, thats it.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
For the people actually fighting and dying, winning has allways been the utmost concern. Its also not the concern of a government to have integrity, its supposed to get the job done, thats it.


Maybe coming from a Machiavellian perspective, but I think you'll find that most people think that the government should have integrity and that integrity should not be sacrificed to "get the job done". Of course the American government doesn't have a very good track record of putting integrity over doing whatever the hell they want...



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When did 'winning' become more important than integrity?


It was a time when I felt just like you, but it only got me depress the more I though about it.

I finally got out of it, is not worthed trying to figure out others, I came to the realization that many American people are just naive when it comes to the political leaders they think they are choosing out of free will.

I don't blame them anymore and I try no to be angry anymore, it's just that some no matter how wonderful they are they are just slower when it comes to see the light.


Originally posted by Nygdan
For the people actually fighting and dying, winning has always been the utmost concern. Its also not the concern of a government to have integrity, its supposed to get the job done, thats it.


Yes Nydgan fighting for a good cause it should always be to win at all cost. But when the good battler has been a corrupted battler from the beginning it will never end in victory but more than often it end up in the worst human waste in the history of the world.

The problem with governments to have a job done at all cost is that it tends to forget the mission that they were set up to accomplish, specially when it was not an honest mission to start with.

Sorry to say that so far the last thing that the Bush administration has done is to get the job done.

You can not win wars on ideology history has prove that already.

You can not earn public trust on lies and deception.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Its also not the concern of a government to have integrity, its supposed to get the job done, thats it.



Who told you that Nygdan? Why do you believe it?




posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Jadette
For those of you who say, "what's wrong with this?" I say, why should the truth have to be purchased?

Who said anything about 'the truth'?

You claim that since the other 'side' is using propaganda, that we have to counter with the same.

Even if they weren't using propaganda, it'd be in the US's best interests to do so

And, even if, somewhere, it's decided to sacrifice freedom of the press for the greater good,

In iraq? Who cares. When the US leaves the iraqis can do whatever they want and write up history books about how the US had to resort to shameful manipulation of the media to defeat the insurgency. Who cares.

I care. I'd hope you cared.


Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When did 'winning' become more important than integrity?

For the people actually fighting and dying, winning has allways been the utmost concern. Its also not the concern of a government to have integrity, its supposed to get the job done, thats it.


I couldn't disagree more.

We are a country built on ideals, and when we sacrifice them it sullies everything this country stands for, every life we paid to build this better life.

We should do things the right ways, for the right reasons, not just because they're easier.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I have no problem with this really, if journalists have to be paid to write good things about the US over there then all they are doing is admitting there is a problem.
But nobody over there will bite and they still have Aljazeera and other local news sources for the 'real' news.

This is actually funny though when I thinka bout it, imagine that people have to be bought to 'highlight' the good bits

As if it doesn't happen already but hey in this case it's just ridiculous.

edit - got sidetracked, edited to stay on topic



[edit on 1-12-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Wasn't it just last week that Donald Rumsfeld stated that the freedom of the press was one of the signs that the War in Iraq was successful? No, the war is still in progress and military propaganda is in full-effect.


Maybe he did not read through the constitution America imposed on Iraq.

www.cpa-iraq.org...

Iraq does NOT have freedom of the Press.

CHAPTER 2, Article 13B
The right of free expression shall be protected.


Even if a particular right is not specified at first issue, that's what amendments are for.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
A couple of questions:

1. What penalties are levied upon those Iraqi newspapers that refuse to print our side of the story?

2.What lies/untruths are we tring to sell to the Iraqi newspapers?

None and none? I didn't think so.

Integrity and honor being supplanted by "winning" and manipulation. :shk: Uh-huh...


It seems to me that the insurgency and Al Jazeera have had their way manipulating a competition-free market for so long, that some of you are afraid of what will happen when the field is levelled a bit, eh?

Especially when the news starts spilling back over to the US and UK...



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   
You know, I sure hope I never have to try to win a war with most of you on here. Most of you don't seem to even comprehend war, but instead live in a fairy land where all is good and bright and actions are all good or bad. War is horrible, but it is not evil, in and of itself. War is, however, about victory. It is not about mercy, kindness, equal rights to enemies or "codes of conduct." Having standards, as most countries do, is good, as long as they don't effect the outcome of the war. Thus the agreements among the civilized to avoid certain actions that are about cruelty, but not about winning a war.
However, when it comes to winning a war, there is only one objective: win. Having any more objectives only leads to failure, and thus the struggles in Iraq. Too much attention has been paid to trying to be politically correct in waging this war, and in trying to treat the enemy like an equal. An enemy is one thing: someone to kill. If you are in a warzone, and someone is armed against you, or resists you, you kill. You don't worry if they are a civilian, because when they stand against you, it doesn't matter, they are the enemy. You don't worry if they are armed; If they try to stop you, they must be overcome. You don't worry if they are injured, or dying; if they resist you, or threaten you, you eliminate them. If their bodies threaten plague, you burn them. You don't worry what the enemy thinks. If the enemy tries to convince the populace to rise against you, you try to convince the populace to join you, or at least remain neutral; failure to do so will only result in more enemies. Why is this so hard to understand??? Or maybe I should ask, why is this so hard to accept? I can't believe all who deny reality don't see or understand it. Only that they refuse to accept it. How shameful that I must call some of them my countrymen.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by saturnine_sweet]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I advise you to post this answer somewhere in another forum here, as the beginning of a separate thread.

With an appropriate thread title of your own.

It will become one of the longest threads in ATS history.

This one especially, deserves a lot of attention, no doubt about it.


Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
You know, I sure hope I never have to try to win a war with most of you on here. Most of you don't seem to even comprehend war, but instead live in a fairy land where all is good and bright and actions are all good or bad. War is horrible, but it is not evil, in and of itself. War is, however, about victory. It is not about mercy, kindness, equal rights to enemies or "codes of conduct." Having standards, as most countries do, is good, as long as they don't effect the outcome of the war. Thus the agreements among the civilized to avoid certain actions that are about cruelty, but not about winning a war.
However, when it comes to winning a war, there is only one objective: win. Having any more objectives only leads to failure, and thus the struggles in Iraq. Too much attention has been paid to trying to be politically correct in waging this war, and in trying to treat the enemy like an equal. An enemy is one thing: someone to kill. If you are in a warzone, and someone is armed against you, or resists you, you kill. You don't worry if they are a civilian, because when they stand against you, it doesn't matter, they are the enemy. You don't worry if they are armed; If they try to stop you, they must be overcome. You don't worry if they are injured, or dying; if they resist you, or threaten you, you eliminate them. If their bodies threaten plague, you burn them. You don't worry what the enemy thinks. If the enemy tries to convince the populace to rise against you, you try to convince the populace to join you, or at least remain neutral; failure to do so will only result in more enemies. Why is this so hard to understand??? Or maybe I should ask, why is this so hard to accept? I can't believe all who deny reality don't see or understand it. Only that they refuse to accept it. How shameful that I must call some of them my countrymen.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by saturnine_sweet]


EDIT: inserted the quoted (not) original text, am curious what the first, uneditted text looked like. (End Edit)


[edit on 5/12/05 by LaBTop]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

However, when it comes to winning a war, there is only one objective: win.
:
Why is this so hard to understand??? Or maybe I should ask, why is this so hard to accept? I can't believe all who deny reality don't see or understand it. Only that they refuse to accept it. How shameful that I must call some of them my countrymen.

The problem here is that a reality such as you describe cannot co-exist with a mindset that is stuck on this track:

I'm sick to death of people making excuses for the USA lowering its standards to the level of the 'enemy' because "They do it, too"! or "They started it"! or "They did it first"! or "It's been that way for a long time"!


And neither logic nor reason will change a mind that is convinced that:

I think you'll find that most people think that the government should have integrity and that integrity should not be sacrificed to "get the job done".



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I expected someone like you to have started with the following chilling quote, indicating the level of political and military indoctrination of a (young?) soldiers mindset, only focussed on doing the job they get served and ordered by their civilian administration :


Too much attention has been paid to trying to be politically correct in waging this war, and in trying to treat the enemy like an equal. An enemy is one thing: someone to kill.


And that remark is the hinge it all hangs on.
The exact mindset which brings us for too many decades already, bloody, filthy wars, based on OUTRIGHT LIES.

Collin Powell, a soldier, has made clear in the past, that the USA should focus on reaching world domination.
Not on bringing real and honest democracy to the world, no, world domination.

Guess what, this was the same man who read that heinious list of blatant LIES to the UN security council and the whole UN assembly.
Which have, ALL of them, proven without doubt to be the lies they were intended to be. Which were used to push us all into a war on an oilrich nation, NOT a man and his followers, who were and are assets of your own CIA, Usama Bin Laden and Al Q'aida.

Iraq was NOT the, one day after 9/11, declared enemy!

That was a man named Usama Bin Laden, who is now concidered by your president as of not imminent importance. The blatant brutality of such a statement blows my mind.
If, which I doubt, UBL was the sole instignator of this attack on US interests, then he should stay on the scene as the MAIN focus of this tricky WOT.

Your Administration is clearly embarked on a train of thoughts, equal or worth than the Nazi's in pre-WW II Germany.

And luckily the first signs of reluctant Army brass are emerging, your own chairman of the Army Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, has for the first time, IN PUBLIC, corrected pure Nazi ideology from the mouth of Donald Rumsfeld, in fact his civilian boss.

A man with cojones and a mind of his OWN !
These kind of SOLDIERS I still do salute!

And what Administration has, since the end of WW II, used the same Gestapo technique of "Nacht und Nebel" (Night and Mist), abducting in full secrecy, from all over the world, all kind of people, declared by their most questionable agency, the CIA, as prisoners of war.
And used our airspace, airfields and facilities, to transport them in hundreds of secret flights to also secret torture camps they payed for in Eastern Europe countries, not so far ago well known for their own Nazi-like torture prisons and subhuman secret police tactics.

It's a SHAME to all educated and uneducated americans alike, and an immense INSULT to OUR democratic basic principles and rights.

And I , or my children, do not want to end up in the same environment as you have to live in at present, and it only gets worth for you over there.
That's why I will always stand up and face thoughts like the above mentioned, thoughts that indicate a totally deformed train of thoughts, a pure evil Nazi-doctrine world of thoughts hammered into young minds by decades of pure evil propaganda.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

from LabTop Jsobecky,

I expected someone like you to have started with the following chilling quote, indicating the level of political and military indoctrination of a (young?) soldiers mindset, only focussed on doing the job they get served and ordered by their civilian administration :

quote: Too much attention has been paid to trying to be politically correct in waging this war, and in trying to treat the enemy like an equal. An enemy is one thing: someone to kill.


Sorry to burst your bubble there, boy, but I cannot in good faith take credit for those words of wisdom.

I never said those words. You've got the wrong guy.


I shall return after I finish my Kraft dinner to give your response the respect it is due.




[edit on 5-12-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Ok, LabTop, I'm back.

I'll start off by giving you the opportunity to apologize and to retract your statement that attributed those statements to me. While you're at it, credit them to the correct person; there is much that he says is true.

That's the way we do it in America. At least most of us. But apparently you are not from the USA, so your values may be different.

And since, by your own admission your entire righteous! tirade hinges on those statements,

from LabTop
And that remark is the hinge it all hangs on.

I will leave you to compose your apology whilst you lick your self-inflicted wounds.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
LaBTop-
Nowhere did I say whether or not I believe the Iraq war was justifiable. At this point, that doesn't matter. What matters now is that the current conflict with the insurgence needs to be resolved as soon as possible. We're there; whining about it now doesn't matter. We don't have the option of redoing it. My point was that you, and those like you, are so disconnected from reality. What would you do if war came to you? Try to negotiate with the enemy while they kill your countrymen, your friends, your family? You make it clear in your post that you consider war barbaric and evil. War is a tool. Sometimes it is necessary to fight, or you and those you love will die. You can deny reality, but you can't change it.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I strongly advise you to reread this first line of mine, addressed at you, which in fact was an encouragement :
"" I expected someone like you to have started with the following chilling quote, ""
and then emphasize on my last word.
(Smile) : Literature reading not been your strongest subject while studying?

I admit, to keep it simple, I could have written "with HIS (or HER?) following" etc.

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

Saturnine_sweet, that was a respectfull answer, which deserves the same respect :


Nowhere did I say whether or not I believe the Iraq war was justifiable. At this point, that doesn't matter. What matters now is that the current conflict with the insurgence needs to be resolved as soon as possible. We're there; whining about it now doesn't matter. We don't have the option of redoing it. My point was that you, and those like you, are so disconnected from reality. What would you do if war came to you? Try to negotiate with the enemy while they kill your countrymen, your friends, your family? You make it clear in your post that you consider war barbaric and evil. War is a tool. Sometimes it is necessary to fight, or you and those you love will die. You can deny reality, but you can't change it.


Let me first set one thing straight, I have probably been in more warzones then you will hopefully ever see. And am still in one, a hidden one to you and most of the world. And seen my share of dead and murdered friends.
That's why I smiled with a bit of sourish aftertaste, when Jsobecky called me a boy.
That was about halfway the last century ago, anybody ever dared to call me that, in my face.
My brothers were in the Army and Navy all their working life, and have served their country just as well as you are probably determined on, to serve yours.

So, having that out of the way, let's debate a few damn important subjects, especially for your and your loved ones own future :

1. - "the insurgence".
Try to find out by yourself who exactly started this "media talk" about socalled "insurgents". Look for the earliest dates in links. No better thing than to try to educate yourself.

Nearly 90% of non-americans observe them as Iraq-born freedom-fighters, and yes, assisted by groups of very upset citizens of neighbouring nations, or nations with the same belief, who come pouring in to help these Iraqi's in their struggle for real, unconditional freedom.
Your country has send you on an occupation mission, as simple as that.
If your politicians at last will wake up, and see the errors of their deeds, and pull out of Iraq, nothing will change. The same war will linger on, but now, it will be a war of truely free man, with different factions from a medieval belief pattern, Soenni's against Shi'its + Kurds, and I can tell you who, in the end, (which end will come fairly fast), will govern this country, one of the birthplaces of our present civilisation, as free men and women again.
Under the guise of dumb propaganda, you and your countrymen are lead to believe that these "barbaric savages" are in no way ready to govern themselfs, and must be "protected" for a long time to come.
I assure you, if the american army would retreat back to Saudi Arabia this moment, that in not more than 3 months, Iraq will be stabelized, really free, and for the most part very gratefull that you left, and quickly maintain diplomatic ties with you and the rest of the world.
But with this US administration, that will never happen, they are building 19 huge fortified bases all over Iraq, and that's not to bring freedom to the Iraqi's, that's should be quite obvious also to you.
It's purely to set up a huge stronghold in the center of the Middle East, to be able to defend the robber oil barons interests in Iraqi oil and gas, and other treasures of their soil, and to be able to directly threaten for years to come, the rest of the middle-eastern oil rich countries which are on their list of nations in need of "freedom from evil regimes".

I was in favour at first of topling Saddam, and expected a quick pull-out, just as after the first Gulf War.
But after a year gone by, and nothing changed for good for the Iraqi citizens, I saw what plans your government is hellbend on, and I started my personal crusade, just as thousands of others with me.

2. - "We don't have the option of redoing it. "
I strongly oppose that view, as have several of your top-brass generals and admirals also expressed themself lately, even one of your most rabient Republican Senators lately demanded unconditional retreat. Bring our boys and girls home, NOW, he demanded in Congress. And let those Iraqi's fight it out themselfs.

3. - "What would you do if war came to you?"
You see it coming, I suppose.
If I were an Iraqi, I would have waited about one year, and then I would have dug up all my gear, and joined "The Resistance" again. And I would have made a lot of casualties, forbidden to photograph by your government btw.
Sounds hard to you perhaps, however, from your words I understand, that you have a fairly logical approach to war.
So take it or LEAVE, would I have said to you, if I were an Iraqi freedom fighter. But -I- would have given you a choice, not so these CIA patsies, murdering civilians in front of their webcams, scum of the earth!
This is done to keep the hatred on top notch, at home and on the battlefield.
And you should know by now, that all this pep-talk from your Army's propaganda arm, about solely former Saddam and his Baath party followers being responsible for all the ambushes, attacks and suicide bombings, is pure, unadulterated bulls-manure.
This is clearly organized by former high ranking Iraqi military men, and it's getting worse by the day, for your side.

It's the same old story, all over again, your governments thinktanks don't give a flying fart about "winning" this war, just as in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Nicaragua, etc., they ONLY want to drag this war on, as long as it can be defended at home, so your military-industrial complex can iron their foothold in your society, even stiffer and deeper, with every war you guys are lied into.

4. - "Try to negotiate with the enemy while they kill your countrymen, your friends, your family?"
That's exactly what your government has done in ALL the wars they started.
Because they needed to drag these "nay-gotiations" on and on, as long as was possible, before risking a civil war at home, so the men behind the curtains could make huge profits on providing the military with their far too expensive gear.
And on the point of killing your family and friends, that is a far too broad subject to address in this thread, read all my posts in other threads, just 5 btw, to understand my position on the real perpetrators of 9/11.

5. - "War is a tool."
Yes, but not for the benefit of you, me and the overwhelming rest of the world. It's for the GREED of a few, and those are not at all solely your countrymen, there's much more hidden for the casual eye.

6. - "Sometimes it is necessary to fight, or you and those you love will die. You can deny reality, but you can't change it."
I never fought "right or wrong". Only for a Justified cause.
And your cause is a synthesized one, made up by a bunch of clear neo-nazi scum of the earth. Who try to act civilized as much as they can, but step out their role from time to time.
That's when you see the real evil they strive after.


To top this long rant off, let me tell you that I respect you for your guts to take up arms and "defend" your country.
But I hope you understand by now, why I choose to put -defend- in " ", apostrophes.
My advise, be extremely carefull, and try to live through it, and please, do not fall back to the same barbaric behavior some of your opponents have relied on.

One last advice:
When it is not clear who your real enemies are, ambush your intended ambushers!
And then you get a chance to find out who the real enemy is. Do not wait for the CIA or military intel to take them away from you, see that you get an arabic speaking mate in your platoon, find out the truth yourself, and have a video camera at hand, so you can choose anytime, now or in the future, to take the risk to serve it to the public.
Do this only when you feel you can unconditionally trust your whole platoon.
It's cleverer to be the predator, instead of serving as the prey.

And, use your brains, don't get them blown out!



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
You know, I sure hope I never have to try to win a war with most of you on here.

*SNIP*

[edit on 5-12-2005 by saturnine_sweet]


Before I read your other post further down, I thought you were justifying the insurgents! LOL To do anything to win a war is bad for insurgents, but ok for the US. Oh well, I guess morality depends upon one's point of view.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
LaBTop-
I'm not really interested in talking about the justifications of the Iraq conflict, so I am going to leave most of that alone. Just tired of talking about that, as I am sure many here are. However, as for the insurgents...I am aware of what you are referring to as to the origins of terming them such; however, their tactics are "terrorist" tactics, and thus they are to me an enemy, whatever you wish to term them. And as for terming them insurgents; they are against the established authority, so whatever you may think of their actions and justifications, they are insurgents in any case. As for the "true freedom" they fight for, I don't buy that. Iraq left to itself would in the end result in a situation similar to it's former regime; we can all see that the world doesn't need another regime of that sort. It's an intrinsic part of any islamic regime. The muslim religion currently spawns violent fundamentalists, much as christianity once did. Not all muslims are violent fundamentalists, but those who are, are very talented at gaining power in, and eventually control over, their countries governments. That is why an Islamic nation needs to establish a "democracy." They need to learn to work together, despite factions, rather than warring against each other, and oppressing the minorities (or simply slaughtering them.) Now, I'm not convinced the current plan for instituting democracy will be effective, but unless a more equal society can be established, the atrocities and terrorism of the middle east will never end. You might say it's their own business, but as countries such as Iran gain nuclear capabilities, I think, or at least hope, more people will begin to see leaving them alone might not be too great. That kind of power in the hands of ANY fundamentalist is not a good thing for the world. Take that how you will.

As a note, before I continue: you talk on and on about the spin by the US government, but you spin just as much, if not more. I don't mean that to be offensive, just an observation.

As for the US government dragging on these wars...they do, but it's funny how those who are blamed for this - the right - aren't actually the ones who are dragging them on.

War is a tool for anyone or any purpose, it all depends on the hands that wield the tool. There are many layers to any war, as you say. But they aren't all sinister, as you seem to imply, and I have never seen any reason to believe all the reasons are connected, either. There are many with interest in wars being fought; some for profit, some for power, some for protecting national interests.

"justification" all depends on perspective. I am not interested in proclaiming my perspective on it. Yours, however, is clear. You are on the side of the enemy in this matter, so naturally, from your perspective, it can't be justified. My point concerning the given conflict is that it's past the point of being justified or not. It just needs to be resolved, and I don't think letting them fight it out, likely resulting in a religous regime, is a good option.

As for your final remarks, you imply that you have "insider" knowledge that backs up your claims. If you do, give your proof. If you don't, don't use the appearance of information to try to lend credibility to your P.O.V.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join