FOX news sensationalist journalism - worrying trend?

chill

What media organisations are independant & don't have their own agendas?

Singling out Fox News is unfair.

I don't believe it is. No other news channel screams about it's claimed fairness and truthfulness and unbiased'ness. None. They deserve to be held accountable for their blatant dishonesty.

Anyway I don't believe their behaviour matters an awful lot inside the US. That's their problem.

What I care more about it the affect they are having around the world where Fox is beginning to dominate the picture that people are getting of america. You may mention CNN but in most places around the world they, including us, only get CNNi - the international version which is quite bland and boring and doesn't attract the big audiences.
It is Fox that is the loudest and look at the image it reflects. They insult other countries every day, they are basically the mouthpiece of the US Bush baby administration, they are deeply antipathetic toward the Democratic party and any views they consider 'liberal'. Bill O'Reilly is the biggest SpinMeister in existance and then there is the truly ignorant Hannity !
They represent everything distasteful about America imho and it's a tragedy that CNBC does not spread it's service wider around the world as some kind of balance.
I think Fox is feeding the level of anti amercianism that is growing all around the world and is so often reflected on Boards.ie

Cork

Originally posted by flogen

Look at who owns Fox, Murdock is in serious cahoots with the Republicans, and it is in his interest to do what he can to keep them in power. Its no coincidence that Fox, the Sun, Sky etc were all pro-war and pro-bush, and failed on numerous levels to criticise him, and even now as the inquireys are being set up they still do what they can to dodgy questioning him.

Flogen

Other media organisations were anti war in Iraq. There is not a common slant on the news.

For example - the Sunday Busineess Post may report a story differantly to the Sunday Indo.

This is what is great about diversity in the the media.

News is all about ratings - this has crept into media organisations in this country. Where are these unbiased news organisations?

Moriarty

Tragic video

flogen

sorry cork, your missing my point..... I know that other papers reported the news differently, but it is more than a coincidence that ALL the media outlets owned by Murdock were all pro-war, as i already said, Murdock has political and other reasons for the war to go ahead and for Bush to stay in power.

Flogen

Moriarty

From what I remember sky news didnt seem to be especially pro-war.

Cork

Originally posted by flogen
sorry cork, your missing my point..... I know that other papers reported the news differently, but it is more than a coincidence that ALL the media outlets owned by Murdock were all pro-war, as i already said, Murdock has political and other reasons for the war to go ahead and for Bush to stay in power.

Flogen

I agree with you 100% on this point.

Jaden

Fox news is crap - This is not new by any stretch of the imagination.

Fox news, despite the name, is not interested in news, it's interested in ratings. When you graps this idea, it becomes obvious why they sensationalise everything.

You can't blame them for that, just for having a misleading name.

Stop watching it if it bothers you.

It is also useful to remember a key difference in news reporting systems here, and in the US.

Here, the media reflects public opinion. In the US, it's vice versa.

chill

Today: Bill O'Reilly today said he is now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologised to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

flogen

Moriarty, due to stricter guidelines on news broadcasts in the UK it was much harder for Sky to be as blatantly pro war as Fox, however it was the subtle things to look out for. For example, the daily bleeding heart snippits of US army men writing letters to their loved ones etc. Dont get me wrong, i wouldnt say its easy to be that far from your family etc, but the fact that this news channel broadcast such slanted views, made you sympatise with the US army etc, and have no counter-piece that showed the damage these men and women were doing to the innocent people of Iraq (excusing the facts they kinda had to show, as in a 5 minute piece about a sad US army man, followed by a 10 second news in brief piece about a bombing of an Iraqi hospital).

One of the most amazing piece of pro-US journalism ive ever seen from a UK source (not exactly war related, but somewhat linked) was Sky News coverage of the Steel Tarrifs the US put on European steel imports. when they were found to be illegal, and Bush was about to stop them, they ran a story on how the US workers will lose out to cheaper Euro imports once tarrifs are lifted. What struck me was their failure to mention the UK steel workers who were being effected by the inability to export to the US due to the tarrifs..... given that steel is a pretty big UK export, and Sky is supposed to be from the Uk.... it was a blatent re-package of a FOX piece, really, they just didnt have the courtesy to admit it.

Flogen

Moriarty

Originally posted by flogen
For example, the daily bleeding heart snippits of US army men writing letters to their loved ones etc.

Have you looked at media coverage from any other war? Did you, perhaps, notice similar pieces? Did you notice how similar storys were carried in many newspapers at the time? Perhaps you were blind to them, but they were there.

Originally posted by flogen
Dont get me wrong, i wouldnt say its easy to be that far from your family etc, but the fact that this news channel broadcast such slanted views, made you sympatise with the US army etc, and have no counter-piece that showed the damage these men and women were doing to the innocent people of Iraq (excusing the facts they kinda had to show, as in a 5 minute piece about a sad US army man, followed by a 10 second news in brief piece about a bombing of an Iraqi hospital).

Arse. Complete arse. You mean to say you dont remember the innumerable reports from bagdad concerning the stockpiling of supplies on the lead up to war, civilian casualties during it and the massive looting after? Again, the reports were most certainly there and they werent rushed through. As somone that was sitting on the fence about the war I detected no bias in sky news' reports.

Originally posted by flogen
One of the most amazing piece of pro-US journalism ive ever seen from a UK source (not exactly war related, but somewhat linked) was Sky News coverage of the Steel Tarrifs the US put on European steel imports. when they were found to be illegal, and Bush was about to stop them, they ran a story on how the US workers will lose out to cheaper Euro imports once tarrifs are lifted. What struck me was their failure to mention the UK steel workers who were being effected by the inability to export to the US due to the tarrifs..... given that steel is a pretty big UK export, and Sky is supposed to be from the Uk.... it was a blatent re-package of a FOX piece, really, they just didnt have the courtesy to admit it.

You see, i actually saw those reports and remember them quite clearly. They werent pro-US, they were laying out the reasons why bush had imposed them in the first place to give a better understanding of the story. There was no judgement passed on who was right or wrong, they were simply reporting why the tarrifs were first put in place and why europe among others were annoyed with them.

Your attitude ironically enough smacks of a neo-con screaming blue bloody murder when anyone criticises them, labeling them as 'anti-american'; except now the soundbite is 'pro-US'. You seem to desperately want to discredit sky for some reason thats beyond me.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Moriarty
I detected no bias in sky news' reports.

Sky is just about as bias as Fox now these days, just in a different way. Bare in mind they are owned by the same people.

the only real way to detect bias.. or rather all news companies have bias, the best way to determine the most impartial story is to read it from various sites.

flogen

Moriarty, you seem to be under the impression that to be bias you have to be blatently one sided. this is not so.
Firstly, yes i saw those kind of reports in the likes of The Sun, but in all honesty no-where else. They failed to make any link between the sad US army men and the US army men who consistently miss targets and kill innocent people.
And I do feel that these bleeding heart reports got far too much air time given other goings on. their reportings of any botched bombings in Iraq were all at face value, no depth, they just reported the fact it had happened, however when something happened regarding Iraqi cruelty etc, they analysed it with that stuid big screen they have behind them...

Secondly, about the imports thing. They dont have to say the US was right, by encouraging you to feel sympatetic with the plight of the US workers, and totally neglecting the situation the tarrifs put the UK workers in, the were showing pro-US bias, against what is supposed to be their own country. There were no counter pieces, no mention, AT ALL of how the UK was effected by the tarrifs, just how the US workers were going to suffer.
that IS bias, and its not me giving out because due to criticism, its my opinion. as I said, bias does not have to be blatent like alot of FOXs broadcasts are, infact its possible the more subtle is the more effective.

Flogen

bonkey

Originally posted by flogen
and the US army men who consistently miss targets and kill innocent people.

I don't think there was any article in any media anywhere about any individual or individuals who "consistently miss targets".

The army, as a whole, had a consistent non-100% hit-rate, but that is not quite the same as what you are implying.

It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of soldiers regularly wrote home. It is not reasonable to assume that the vast majority of soldiers "consistently miss targets".....so I fail to see why you would expect to see the two to be linked.

Unless, of course, I'm missing some information that you have access to, and that there was a group of soldiers who were consistently shooting up civilians????

And I do feel that these bleeding heart reports got far too much air time given other goings on.

Well gee...the UK had their own soldiers in the field too. Given that the US had far more reporters in-theatre, it is not unreasonable to expect pieces on US soldiers reported on UK media to remind the readers/viewers/listeners of the type of stuff that their own contingent of lads are going to be doing out there.

their reportings of any botched bombings in Iraq were all at face value, no depth, they just reported the fact it had happened, however when something happened regarding Iraqi cruelty etc, they analysed it with that stuid big screen they have behind them...

No argument from me there. Thats the type of biased reporting I do have a problem with.

In fairness, though, they did usually follow the alleged botches/cruelties by the Coalition up with the US military to a point...after which you have to ask what you expect from teh reporters? Should they turn around to the US generals etc. and say - without any proof, mind you - "you're lying...you don't care about these poor Iraqis at all"???

I don't think the reporters covered themselves in glory, but lets face it...there's a limit to how impartial we can expect the reporters of a nation who has soldiers in the field to be.

jc

flogen

although to expect no bias whatsoever would be unreasonable, and thats from any source, not just Sky news, however, I think we should always be attempting to reach such perfection..
Sky News was not at war, nor was the BBC or ITV, so none of them should be allowed to be bias on the basis of UK or US soldiers being in the firing line (however, some personal emotion is bound to spill over into news... my problem is when its so much so that the reality is distorted, or if the reason for bias is not emotion but more executive desicion, for which the likes of The Sun are unquestionably guilty). In honesty I dont think national bias should be an issue (although it is), I would like to think that RTE would report a scandal story on Irish Officials just as well as a US or UK news source.

also, although I understand your point about the reasons behind the pieces on soldiers away from home, I dont think, although its just opinon really, that Sky were trying to show the plight of soldiers, but more encouraging sympathy for these people, while showing much less human compassion as regards actual tragedies regarding Iraqi innocent.
The showed plenty of news features that struck the heart of people in regard to the UK/US army personell, but presented the X amount of Iraqi dead as a hard news piece, a statistic... there was very little in the way of making you feel sorry for these people any more than you would when presented the facts.. surely they could have done a feature on families of the victims etc, shown that they have lost a relative that wasnt even fighting?

And excuse me if i seemed to imply that these men and women were constantly missing their targets, or doing so on purpose, I was just pointing out that these people were being built up as national heros and brave men and women, of course they are brave, but we must remember that they are somewhat responsible for the death of countless innocents, not that it was by intention or anything.

Flogen

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes
Sky is just about as bias as Fox now these days, just in a different way. Bare in mind they are owned by the same people.

I disagree entirely, but theres little point in my trying to argue with you - guilt by association is apparently enough for you. Btw, im sure everyone here knows theyre owned by news corp, theres no need to go stating the obvious.

Originally posted by Hobbes
the only real way to detect bias.. or rather all news companies have bias, the best way to determine the most impartial story is to read it from various sites.

Which is what I do. Presumeably though I wont be reading enough impartial sources for your liking until I sign up to indymedia.

Originally posted by flogen
Moriarty, you seem to be under the impression that to be bias you have to be blatently one sided. this is not so.

tr.v. bi·ased, or bi·assed bi·as·ing, or bi·as·sing bi·as·es or bi·as·ses
To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.

I responded to your claim that sky were "as blatantly pro war as Fox".

Originally posted by flogen
And I do feel that these bleeding heart reports got far too much air time given other goings on. their reportings of any botched bombings in Iraq were all at face value, no depth, they just reported the fact it had happened, however when something happened regarding Iraqi cruelty etc, they analysed it with that stuid big screen they have behind them...

Incorrect. There were the obvious logistical problems of there being far more reporters with the uk/us forces than there were with iraqi forces or in iraqi citys and therefore there were far more reports filed from the coalition perspective. The reporters in bagdad could only make so many reports per hour or day. Never the less, they reported numerous times on bombs and missiles going astray and killing people, on missing Iraqi conscripts and on the deterioration of the infrastructure. There were countless reports througout Iraq of severly injured civilians flooding local hospitals ill-equipped to cope with the demand.

Originally posted by flogen
Secondly, about the imports thing. They dont have to say the US was right, by encouraging you to feel sympatetic with the plight of the US workers, and totally neglecting the situation the tarrifs put the UK workers in, the were showing pro-US bias, against what is supposed to be their own country. There were no counter pieces, no mention, AT ALL of how the UK was effected by the tarrifs, just how the US workers were going to suffer.

They no more made you feel sympathy towards the US steel workers than the UK steel workers. They interviewed some workers asking them what they thought of the tarrifs. If your opinion can be swayed so easily that you'd change your mind based on those interviews, its worth nothing.

Originally posted by flogen
that IS bias, and its not me giving out because due to criticism, its my opinion. as I said, bias does not have to be blatent like alot of FOXs broadcasts are, infact its possible the more subtle is the more effective.

It wasnt bias. The US imposed the tarrifs so the story was, naturally enough, about america and why the tarrifs were imposed - to keep jobs. If europe had imposed tarrifs on the US, would it be wrong to interview european steel workers for their opinions? If you cant see that they were just the opinions of workers the US government was trying to protect for whatever reason, I cant help you.

Originally posted by flogen
The showed plenty of news features that struck the heart of people in regard to the UK/US army personell, but presented the X amount of Iraqi dead as a hard news piece, a statistic... there was very little in the way of making you feel sorry for these people any more than you would when presented the facts..

You need a puff piece to get it through your head that people have died?!

Originally posted by flogen
surely they could have done a feature on families of the victims etc, shown that they have lost a relative that wasnt even fighting?

Actually there were a number of reports on this very topic. Im sure if you dig around on the sky news site youll find them easily enough.

Originally posted by flogen
And excuse me if i seemed to imply that these men and women were constantly missing their targets, or doing so on purpose, I was just pointing out that these people were being built up as national heros and brave men and women, of course they are brave, but we must remember that they are somewhat responsible for the death of countless innocents, not that it was by intention or anything.

I'm sure that many armys will be extremly intrested in your fantastic plan on how to wage war without the killing of non-combatants. Heh.

chill

And excuse me if i seemed to imply that these men and women were constantly missing their targets, or doing so on purpose, I was just pointing out that these people were being built up as national heros and brave men and women, of course they are brave, but we must remember that they are somewhat responsible for the death of countless innocents, not that it was by intention or anything.
Flogen

These men were and are incredible heroes for the US and the Iraqi people. They managed to destroy the army of Saddam in a couple of days when almost every anti war activist said it would be six months. They did so with the greatest care not to kill innocent civilians in the history of warfare and succeeded in winning the war with only a thousand or less civilian casualties. If Iraq does indeed grasp the opportunity of democracy then these men will be remembered with gratitude for liberating 20 million people or more.

chill

Let's look at a selection of 'expert' guests that Fox retains for regular consultations on screen...

Bill Bennet: Hypocrite extraordinaire who made his name wagging his finger at Bill Clinton and sundry, exposed as a lying gambling addict.

Dick Morris: Former democratic election advisor, caught in a an almost daily 'affair' with a prostitute.

Ollie North: A traitor who fought a treasonous war and lied to Congress.

Detective Mark Fuhrman: Caught bare faced lying in the OJ trial.


What a line up of credible commentators for the channel that brings us 'Fair, Balanced and unafraid" news...... NOT.

Piliger

Originally posted by MODERATOR Moriarty

Arse. Complete arse.

Huh ?

Moriarty

Huh?²

flogen

ok, moriarty, let me just sort afew things out.,
at no point did i say sky were as blatently pro-war as fox. i did say they couldn be due to different liable laws in the UK and US, so I assume you mis-read it. I did say sky were pro war, however, that is for sure.

perhaps other reporters gave as much time to bombing etc as you say, but sky did not, from what I saw (I'll be honest in saying I didnt watch the channel 24/7, and i doubt anyone here did). As i stated, Sky were inclined to give hard facts about the dead innocents, but make us feel sorry for a US soldier who misses his/her loved ones. No i do not need a 'puff piece' for me to understand the tragedy of a stray bomb in a market place, but I also dont need such a piece to tell me just how hard it is to be away from your family with the prospect of never seeing them again, or at least for some time. And it would be an insult to the public, both here and in the UK to assume that they would need one either.

on the matter of the tarrifs. Yes, i know why the US imposed them, and thats fair enough, but that piece was run after they were found illegal, and just before they were revoked. Now it is obviously in the interest of the US government to protect US jobs, but it is also in the interest of the EU, and thus the UK to protect European/UK jobs. these tarrifs meant huge export losses for English steel companies, and may have resulted in big British job losses. So why is it that a UK channel shows us the plight of US worker while failing to mention that if the tarrifs remain, the UK and EU will suffer? the piece was what is known as bias by omission, in that it omitted the facts about the threat to UK jobs in an attempt to sway the viewers opinion. a simple 10 second addition at the end stating how the lifiting of tarrifs will mean better income for UK companies would have removed this at least somewhat.

please do not try and patronise me by assuming my opinion can be swayed by such a report, or tell me the value of my opinion either. as i said, the piece was bias, but that does not mean I am thus influenced by it. However, there may be less media-aware people, who unlike you and I, only get their news from one source, or fail to question it and just digest it. such a report may effect these people. Also, as previous Murdock expeditions have shown (such as the so called 'slow drip back to work') if something is drilled into the public enough, they are likely to accept it as fact (especially if it comes from an outlet they would consider reputable). If sky slowly work it into the viewers head that everything Bush does is a good thing, they may soon be a supporter rather than neutral or opposed. This is just my opinion as to why sky would air such a piece by the way, naturally I cannot give you conclusive proof which documents such a plan on sky news part

the only features i saw on sky involved Iraqi injured being helped by US/UK forces. such as the boy who lost his limbs in an accidental bombing of a public place, who was later being treated in the US, and was showing support and forgiveness for the mistake made by the army. i most certainly saw nothing as regards the grief of families involved in such mistakes, however i will have a look and see

and i never claimed that i had a solution for the deaths of innocent people in a war situation, I understand that it has been and is likely to always be a factor in war. In saying that, I feel that encouraging sympathy for the US soldiers while avoiding details as regards the people they have killed (and by killed I refer mainly to innocents), is bias.

and chill, in all respect to you (and the soldiers) although it is brave to go and fight whatever the reason is or the fight is regarding, i do not think they (or at least the upper-level of army officials) were very careful in the handling of avoiding civilian casualties. the Shock and Awe campaign is a good sign of this. To basically carpet bomb the capital city, and thus most built up area in the country, is just asking for non-army deaths. I understand that alot of other deaths were due to logistics error perhaps, or even nervous young army personell who paniced when a van failed to stop at a checkpoint, but both of these could be blamed on Americas lack of preperation at the same time. Didnt they bomb a pharmacutical factory because they thought it was a WMD site? its this kind of bad planning that leads me to believe that not everyone cared so much as to the amount of Iraqi civilians dead.
I would also assume that the civilian death toll is above 1000, it is uncounted so far, for whatever reason, but the likes of the market place bombing had a huge toll, as did many other bombing mistakes (many of which we will never really know the toll, one way or the other)

Flogen

monument

Originally posted by Moriarty
Sky is just about as bias as Fox now these days, just in a different way. Bare in mind they are owned by the same people.

Originally posted by Moriarty
I disagree entirely, but theres little point in my trying to argue with you - guilt by association is apparently enough for you. Btw, im sure everyone here knows theyre owned by news corp, theres no need to go stating the obvious.

It is not because they are owned by News Corp, it’s because Rupert Murdoch currently interferes with the editorial slant (what party they support etc…) of the Sun, the (London) Times and Sky News (I’m nearly sure Murdoch has even publicly said this). Which makes them them bias - but to some points of views nearly every news source is.

chill

Originally posted by flogen
and chill, in all respect to you (and the soldiers) although it is brave to go and fight whatever the reason is or the fight is regarding, i do not think they (or at least the upper-level of army officials) were very careful in the handling of avoiding civilian casualties. the Shock and Awe campaign is a good sign of this. To basically carpet bomb the capital city, and thus most built up area in the country, is just asking for non-army deaths.

Which is of course completely untrue. There was no carpet bombing. And that is proved by the tiny number of civilian deaths in the weeks of the war. The US soldiers went to the most unprecedented efforts to avoid civilian deaths in the history of warfare and all attacks on the city were successfully targetted with only a couple of errors.

I understand that alot of other deaths were due to logistics error perhaps, or even nervous young army personell who paniced when a van failed to stop at a checkpoint, but both of these could be blamed on Americas lack of preperation at the same time.

It is war and they were perfectly justified in shooting first and asking questions later. Anyone driving at an army roadblock without stopping deserved to get blown to bits.

Didnt they bomb a pharmacutical factory because they thought it was a WMD site? its this kind of bad planning that leads me to believe that not everyone cared so much as to the amount of Iraqi civilians dead.

If you believe that load of old propaganda then you'll believe anything. Anyone with a brain new that the Iraqis rushed out the building and spread baby food posters all over it to make it look like a factory. It was not.

I would also assume that the civilian death toll is above 1000, it is uncounted so far, for whatever reason, but the likes of the market place bombing had a huge toll, as did many other bombing mistakes (many of which we will never really know the toll, one way or the other)

The market place bombing was not an American action. It was an Iraqi bomb/missile. I seriously doubt that the civilian death toll even reached anywhere near a thousand, except on the web sites of the anti war brigade.

flogen

your post really did make me laugh chill, thanks for that.

ok, firstly:

If you believe that load of old propaganda then you'll believe anything. Anyone with a brain new that the Iraqis rushed out the building and spread baby food posters all over it to make it look like a factory. It was not.

really? do you have proof of this? was it from www.whitehouse.gov? What a load of crap. so what was it? it certainly wasnt a WMD plant like they thought in the first place. TBH, your idea sounds like a bad piece of spin to me, While your at it, please explain to me how they managed to bomb a red cross centre in Afghanistan? did the Taliban run out and paint the roof with a red cross to make it look like one at the last minute too?

secondly:

The market place bombing was not an American action. It was an Iraqi bomb/missile. I seriously doubt that the civilian death toll even reached anywhere near a thousand, except on the web sites of the anti war brigade.

maybe your thinking of a seperate instance, but the US did bomb an Iraqi market. they had to apologise after wards too, it was a stray missile i think

thirdly:

It is war and they were perfectly justified in shooting first and asking questions later

spoken like a true advocate of pre-emptive attacks (and look where thats gotten the US/UK now)

fourthly:

Which is of course completely untrue. There was no carpet bombing. And that is proved by the tiny number of civilian deaths in the weeks of the war. The US soldiers went to the most unprecedented efforts to avoid civilian deaths in the history of warfare and all attacks on the city were successfully targetted with only a couple of errors.

Ok, so what was shock and awe? i watched it happen live, and it didnt look very dis-similar to carpet bombing to me. If Saddam had WMD, he wouldnt have put them in bagdad, and it was known that the army was spread across all towns and cities in Iraq, so why hit the capital repeatedly for about 3 or 4 days (cant quite remember). from what i understand the only thing it did was cut out electricity to the towns, probably effecting the people more than the soldiers.
And what were these unprecidented measures you keep going on about? the US went into Iraq with no solid reason, very little understanding of the hostile nature they would encouter, very little care for the people that they should be trying to win over... the fact is many innocents died, and i cant find anything to say that the US went out of its way to avoid such occourances. sure, civilain casualties has and will be a factor of war for many years, if not forever, but what makes you believe the US tried its best to keep the number low? And to say that someone who drives at a checkpoint deserves to be killed is rediculous. Do you think that the families who shot into the air to celebrate a wedding deserved to die too?? (and thats a simple example of the insensitivity the US had to Iraqi customs and ways of life)

Flogen

chill

Originally posted by flogen

really? do you have proof of this?

Ah the usual deflection technique. You make an accusation and then ask for proof that your wrong. Cute. If you have evidence that it happened please enlighten us.

it certainly wasnt a WMD plant like they thought in the first place. TBH, your idea sounds like a bad piece of spin to me, While your at it, please explain to me how they managed to bomb a red cross centre in Afghanistan? did the Taliban run out and paint the roof with a red cross to make it look like one at the last minute too?

Yes they did bomb one - actually if memory serves me correctly, I think it was two. Accidents happen in war. The war was afantastic success but naturally stuff happens that is bad. So be it.

maybe your thinking of a seperate instance, but the US did bomb an Iraqi market. they had to apologise after wards too, it was a stray missile i think

My recollection is that the US denied it and it was later shown by it's explosion profile to be an intentional Iraqi action to smear the US. Though I suppose those nice Iraqi regime people would never do that eh ? Only the nasty Americans !

spoken like a true advocate of pre-emptive attacks (and look where thats gotten the US/UK now)

Absolutely. And true. The results in Afghanistan and Iraqw have been excellent, if poorly handled. Two countries liberated, hundreds of thousands of lives saved, WMD risk reduced, democracy on it's way. Excellent.

Ok, so what was shock and awe? i watched it happen live,

Me too.

and it didnt look very dis-similar to carpet bombing to me.

And what exactly does carpet bombing look like ? ever see it executed in Vietnam ? Would you know it if it was or wasn't ? Doesn't seem so.

If Saddam had WMD, he wouldnt have put them in bagdad, and it was known that the army was spread across all towns and cities in Iraq, so why hit the capital repeatedly for about 3 or 4 days (cant quite remember). from what i understand the only thing it did was cut out electricity to the towns, probably effecting the people more than the soldiers.

They attacked lots of strategic targets like power, water, many local and major barracks, weapons depots, storage areas, command centres, comms centres. All essential targets and they did so with tiny damage to civilians despite the huge efforts that the Iraqis made to embed their military in civilian districs against the Geneva convention and in an attempt o have as many civilians killed as possible.

And what were these unprecidented measures you keep going on about? the US went into Iraq with no solid reason, very little understanding of the hostile nature they would encouter, very little care for the people that they should be trying to win over... the fact is many innocents died, and i cant find anything to say that the US went out of its way to avoid such occourances. sure, civilain casualties has and will be a factor of war for many years, if not forever, but what makes you believe the US tried its best to keep the number low?

The numbers. War won in a couple of weeks. Hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers killed, enemy army destroyed, iraq liberated, hadful of allied casualties, a few hundred civilian casualties with most being caused by the Iraqi army. An amazing success.
Teh aftermath is a mess but in the context of the size of the country and the benefit of liberation it is welel worth it.

And to say that someone who drives at a checkpoint deserves to be killed is rediculous.

I believe it to be true.

Do you think that the families who shot into the air to celebrate a wedding deserved to die too??

Eh no, I never said that. But then again if you take out weapons and let of some shots in the middle of a battle you can hardly complain if soldiers react. Stands to reason in my book.

(and thats a simple example of the insensitivity the US had to Iraqi customs and ways of life)

In the middle of battle any soldier that pays attention to customs is a stupid dead soldier.

flogen

firstly, the reason why i ask for proof is because I have never heard such an explanation before, and was wondering where it came from. it sounds abit stupid to me.

Secondly there is a difference between accidents and plain stupidity and bad organistation. accidents happen when a bomb misses its target by afew feet or the wiring goes nuts in a smart bomb. stupidity is when they bomb a 'target' that is clearly an aid facility.

Thirdly your recolection is right to a point, the US did say it was Iraqi fire, but later admitted it was US. I am under no illusion that the old Iraqi regime were nice guys, but that doesnt mean the US are most certainly angels.

Again, please dont jump to the conclusion that i dont know what carpet bomb is, yes I have seen it previous wars, albeit archived footage. Shock and awe was mearly an extension of this tactic, it was bomb after bomb dropped on a city. they may have hit genuine targets, thats not in question, but they also hit plenty of civilain ones too. the fact that the basis of the tactic was not to hit targets but to scare the Iraqis just shows how stupid and pointless it was.

I think it is abit early to say that Iraq has been liberated, it is a fact that although Saddam has gone the Iraqi people still live in fear for some reason or another. And Democracy is still some time away from here. Why? because the basis of Iraqi lives is not based on Democracy and so they are going to have some task in adapting to it. the country consists of ethnic splits, tribes and groupings, and it will be a very very long time until these groups unite 100% under a democratic government.

also, it would be hard for me to complain about US reactions to my customs if I had been killed by them. I think it a fundamental flaw in US policy in Iraq that they ignore Iraqi traditions. How do they expect to be accepted if they treat the way of life of Iraqi people with hostility. Sure, you must be on your guard in a war setting, but for a state of the art US jet to use high power explosives to destroy a small group of Iraqi men and women even though they were not being targeted by them is just ignorance and over-reaction.

The US have not done a great deal to aid the Iraqi people, during the war or after, that is why it is so easy for Saddams surviving men and women, along with other extremist groups to get support for their actions.

Flogen

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
They did so with the greatest care not to kill innocent civilians.

Originally posted by chill
It is war and they were perfectly justified in shooting first and asking questions later. Anyone driving at an army roadblock without stopping deserved to get blown to bits.

chill those two statements are not compatible.

The US Army's official policy to war has always been to protect US Army persons above civilians, even of countries they are supposed to be protecting such as Iraq, Vietnam or where ever.

The US Army will shoot first at any "target" that they do not recognise. Under their policy no attempt to differentiate between civilian and enemy targets needs to be made. It is upon the target to identify itself, which is kinda hard if the target doesn't know the US forces are there.

This is why for an entire day the US army shot at any car or van coming down a main Baghdad highway. They encountered no enemy forces but continued to fire at any target that they did not recognise as US forces. The killed women and children driving home, the vast majority of people were workers returning home from work on the normal road.

No attempt was made by the US forces to identify themselves (in case their position was revealed to the enemy). The civilians were not approaching a check point, they were driving down a public road, and had no idea that they were driving towards US forces until they had been fired upon.

This is why I believe that the US Army should not engage in urban warfare in population centrers where "friendly" civilians live. If they themselves are not prepare to take risks to protect the civilians to are claiming to protect, then they should not be "protecting" them in the first place. How many liberated friendly civilians is it acceptable to kill to protect the life of a US service man?

What ever you think about the war Iraq, it is a disrespect to those civilians killed to claim that the US forces took care not to target civilians. They didn't take care. They didn't purposely target civilians, but that is not the same thing. They did what they always do. They made no attempt to identify if a target was friendly or hostile before they engaged, which is what they are trained to do.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Ah the usual deflection technique. You make an accusation and then ask for proof that your wrong. Cute. If you have evidence that it happened please enlighten us.

What is cute is that the US bombed the plant, and claimed it was a WMD plant, and never showed proof for their allegations in the first place.

It is priceless that you are now accusing others of being disingenuous because they are asking for the proof that the US allegations were true.

Yes they did bomb one - actually if memory serves me correctly, I think it was two.

Yes - the second one occurred after the first one, and after the Red Cross had gone to teh US and specifically handed over a list of locations where they were based.

The initial US claims were that the base was known to be harbouring resistance, but this was later changed to being a second accident with co-ordinates.

In either case, it shows that the allegation of "all possible care" being taken are either a terrible condemnation of the quality and ability of the US army, or are quite simply false.

They attacked lots of strategic targets like power, water, ...

You do know that deliberate targetting of civilian-necessary resources such as power and water constitutes a war-crime, yes?

In the middle of battle any soldier that pays attention to customs is a stupid dead soldier.

Who said anything about the middle of a battle. Or do you wish to claim that the entire continuation of military presence in Iraq constitutes a battle?????

jc

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
chill those two statements are not compatible.

I don't agree.

The US Army's official policy to war has always been to protect US Army persons above civilians, even of countries they are supposed to be protecting such as Iraq, Vietnam or where ever.

That is simply not born out by any facts I am aware of.

The US Army will shoot first at any "target" that they do not recognise. Under their policy no attempt to differentiate between civilian and enemy targets needs to be made. It is upon the target to identify itself, which is kinda hard if the target doesn't know the US forces are there.

I have never encountered or learnt of any such policy by the US military. Have you any references for that ?

This is why for an entire day the US army shot at any car or van coming down a main Baghdad highway. They encountered no enemy forces but continued to fire at any target that they did not recognise as US forces. The killed women and children driving home, the vast majority of people were workers returning home from work on the normal road. No attempt was made by the US forces to identify themselves (in case their position was revealed to the enemy). The civilians were not approaching a check point, they were driving down a public road, and had no idea that they were driving towards US forces until they had been fired upon.

Have you any references to evidence that ? Because I do not believe it is true.

This is why I believe that the US Army should not engage in urban warfare in population centrers where "friendly" civilians live. If they themselves are not prepare to take risks to protect the civilians to are claiming to protect, then they should not be "protecting" them in the first place. How many liberated friendly civilians is it acceptable to kill to protect the life of a US service man?

Fine words if they had any relation to reality. The US army is not great at urban warfare but they do pretty well and have delivered the freedom the Iraqi people craved. You are bieng disingenuous if you are suggested an alternative reality where some other army would be capable of fighting this war with less civilian casualties. It is simply not possible in a scenario where the enemy dress in civilian dress, men and women.

What ever you think about the war Iraq, it is a disrespect to those civilians killed to claim that the US forces took care not to target civilians. They didn't take care.

Not true. They have taken more care than any army in history and have risked their own soldiers in taking such care.

They made no attempt to identify if a target was friendly or hostile before they engaged, which is what they are trained to do.

I have never seen any evidence of that claim, ever. And I don't count newspaper column writers as evidence

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
That is simply not born out by any facts I am aware of.

More innocent Afghani's were killed in the recent war by US soldiers than US soldiers were killed by anyone whilst "liberating" them. The same holds true for innocent Iraqis being liberated.

I could be wrong, but I believe you will find the same also holds true for Kuwaitis from the first Gulf War.

So when the lives of innocents killed by their liberators stack up faster than those of the liberators themselves, one has to ask why it is. It does not immediately imply a imbalance, but it hints that there may be one...

They have taken more care than any army in history and have risked their own soldiers in taking such care.

They have taken more care than any army in history, this is true.

Have they taken all care that they possibly could? Not a chance.

Have they risked their soldiers? In some situations, yes, but in many situations, no.

As an example, the US recently admitted that cluster-munitions remaining after their so-called expiration date was indeed a problem.....because for the first time it was causing the US army itself some problems.

Now that would make it reasonable to assume that this would tend to indicate that the allegations about the dangers these posed to innocents were not entirely fictitious, at which point one can only ask why the US was using such a strategy, if not because its efficacity against the enemy outweighed its cost to innocents.

However, once it became a risk to their own soldiers, its use had to be reconsidered.

If this does not highlight that the life of a US soldier is worth more than that of an innocent in the eyes of the US army, then I'd love to know why not, as it shows that tactics should not be altered on complaints that a small number of civilians are killed/maimed, but as soon as the same happens to the military, the first thing done was to see if it could be cleaned up easily (which wasn't worth doing for the civilians alone), and the second thing (when they discovered it wasn't an easy task) was to admit that the strategy of the use of cluster munitions had to be rethought because of the risk it posed to military personnel.

In other words...killing a few civilians is not a problem, but risking yoru own soldiers from the same thing is just not on.

jc

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by chill
I have never encountered or learnt of any such policy by the US military. Have you any references for that ?

I think I know where Wicknight got this from. There was a documentry on Channel 4 a couple of Satuday's ago, was called something "The Iraqi War: How the US/UK got it wrong" or something along those lines.
They admitted that the policy was shoot on site, it was pretty disgusting to see really. They just assumed everything coming down the road was a "legitimate target". One woman had to spend a night in a car with her dead family playing dead because she was afraid to move in case they'd shoot her.
And there was media footage too of this, presumably "embedded" journalists.