Good things are happening in Iraq

[vulturesrow]

Positive events in Iraq (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005543)

Why is it we so little of these things reported in the mainstream media?

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it we so little of these things reported in the mainstream media?

[/ QUOTE ]


Explosions & Beheadings = Better Ratings = $$$$

[elwoodblues]

Which of the parts of the article were you unaware of? The article is strewn with links to other articles from other publications reporting on this stuff.

[vulturesrow]

When I said mainstream media, I was specifically referring to TV news broadcast. Id say probably 90 percent of their Iraq stories are about the fighting, terrorist bombs, or kidnappings. Sorry I wasnt more specific.

[elwoodblues]

Because TV news is a different medium than print, I think they tend to have different types of stories (i.e. more sensational ones, ones that are more visual.) The half hour TV news programs also have time restraints that come into play to a greater extent than space issues come up in print. The national nightly news really only has time to cover front page news and the top stories in each of several categories. All news chanels are different, and I would expect them to have more of these stories --- I honestly don't know if they do or don't.

That being said, I still think I've seen most of this on mainstream TV news.

[wacki]

elwoodblues,

You may be correct in that it is getting some coverage, but look at the number of times the NY times, LA times, or Wash Post print repetitive scandal stories. By that I mean same story, nothing really new, still on the front page. Then count the number of stories you see printed like this.

Better yet, ask somebody random when Iraq finally got a public sanitation department working, for the first time in their history. Or ask them to list things that have gone right.

I agree with vulturesrow.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
ask somebody random when Iraq finally got a public sanitation department working, for the first time in their history

[/ QUOTE ]
They'd probably say about 100 years ago, and they'd be right. By the 1980's, Iraq's public sanitation system was exemplary among developing countries and directly contributed to its extremely low infant mortality rate. That is, until the U.S. bombed it during the Gulf War, spearheaded the crippling of Iraq with sanctions and bombed it again during the most recent aggression.

From Oxfam (http://www.oxfamamerica.org/emergency/art6304.html), 11/19/03: <ul type="square"> The recent war has inflicted massive destruction on critical water and sanitation systems, including damage of electrical fittings in water treatment plants, the clogging of critical sewage systems, and a shortage of water caused by leaks and damage to major water pipelines. The water and sanitation infrastructures in Southern Iraq—and particularly in and around Nassriyah—were in dire need of repair. Following the war, the local departments of public works in Iraq were not open and functioning. Public water was not treated, the sewage systems were not being attended, and the coordinating office in Baghdad responsible for these services was not operational due to bombing.[/list] Unless you're implying some kind of Khmer Rouge "year zero" concept where a country's history begins only when the U.S. takes over, your statement is nonsense. Iraq had public santiation, the U.S. wrecked it, took over Iraq and is now rebuilding it (and likely privatizing it -- water riots on the way). If Iraq had done the same to the U.S., one can easily imagine the reaction in the patriotic press to assertions that Iraqi-lead "reconstruction" amounts to so much unqualified "good news."

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it we so little of these things reported in the mainstream media?

[/ QUOTE ]
In countries like North Korea and Iran, they are all the time. The press is filled with wondrous accounts of great accomplishments by the leadership that laud the irrelevant (a "'people's' counsel" only allowed to advise the U.S.-appointed interim government). Also note: the power fo the Interim National Council to veto decisions of the U.S.-appointed government cabinet requires a two-thirds vote, and 19% of the seats are reserved for the U.S.- appointed Iraqi Governing Council, allegedly "disbanded" after the "transfer of sovereingty."

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
In countries like North Korea and Iran, they are all the time. The press is filled with wondrous accounts of great accomplishments by the leadership that laud the irrelevant (a "'people's' counsel" only allowed to advise the U.S.-appointed interim government).

[/ QUOTE ]

YOu are comparing apples to oranges here. The US is not a despotic nation ruled by a religious leader or Communist tyrant. Even if we were such, wouldnt it follow that the media would be full of these good stories? But they arent, especially not in the medium that a great deal of Americans rely on as their primary news source.

[ QUOTE ]
Also note: the power fo the Interim National Council to veto decisions of the U.S.-appointed government cabinet requires a two-thirds vote, and 19% of the seats are reserved for the U.S.- appointed Iraqi Governing Council, allegedly "disbanded" after the "transfer of sovereingty."

[/ QUOTE ]

I note that you conveniently left out a couple key facts. One that is that the Interim National Council is only together until the elections of January 2005. Secondly those reserved seats are 19% of 100, hardly a powerhouse number.

Why is it you think that Iraq establishing a representative government for the first time in close to 50 years is irrelevant?

[Chris Alger]

1. I compared the the Journal story to the typical news of totalitarian states because it reads so much the same, even to the point of comical delusion. As Elwood points out, every fact in this article was widely disseminated throughout the mainstream media, as is the general line that the U.S. is voluntarily surrendering its power of Iraqis to "representative" leaders. The Journal itself has the second largest circulation (behind USA Today) of any daily paper in the US. So the notion that the "media" aren't reporting the "good news" is absurd. In fact, among the more slavishly pro-state press (like the Journal), the persistent theme is just like this one: the US does wonderful things everywhere and no one reports it.

So, obviously, one doesn't need a totalitarian state for the press to be subservient to the interests of external power to the point of operating as a propaganda machine.

2. "the Interim National Council is only together until the elections of January 2005. Why is it you think that Iraq establishing a representative government for the first time in close to 50 years is irrelevant?"

The story was lauding the "good news" of the interim council, so I assumed you beleived it was something important. Now you seem to be calling this toothless body a "representative government" -- with only adivsory (i.e., no) power. The reason that Iraq's future government will not be representative is that it will be dominated by U.S. appointees who, under U.S. dictated law, will hold office regardless of who wins the 2005 elections. The U.S. military will also continue to occupy the country and operate outside the bounds of Iraqi law, as it does now, making the who notion of Iraqi sovereignty a joke. And, of course, the reconsturction aid that Iraq needs to function will all remain under the control of the U.S.

You're assuming the same country that helped bring to power and maintain Saddam has turned over some new leaf and wants to transfer power to Iraqis even when it doesn't have to. It's naive. You seem to believe it only because the government and the government supporting press tell you to.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I compared the the Journal story to the typical news of totalitarian states because it reads so much the same, even to the point of comical delusion. As Elwood points out, every fact in this article was widely disseminated throughout the mainstream media, as is the general line that the U.S. is voluntarily surrendering its power of Iraqis to "representative" leaders. The Journal itself has the second largest circulation (behind USA Today) of any daily paper in the US. So the notion that the "media" aren't reporting the "good news" is absurd. In fact, among the more slavishly pro-state press (like the Journal), the persistent theme is just like this one: the US does wonderful things everywhere and no one reports it.

So, obviously, one doesn't need a totalitarian state for the press to be subservient to the interests of external power to the point of operating as a propaganda machine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok if you want to blind yourself to the truth that is fine. I specifically referenced TV, which is what most Americans use as their usual source of news. Most people arent like those of us that seek out news and take the time to track down different stories etc. The link I posted is not something that is found in the print Journal. I guarantee the television news shows way more stories that are "bad" news rather than good news. I dont know if the Journal says no one reports it, I am saying it based on what I have seen. There are a smattering here and there on the TV news but for the most part its not.

[ QUOTE ]
2. "the Interim National Council is only together until the elections of January 2005. Why is it you think that Iraq establishing a representative government for the first time in close to 50 years is irrelevant?"

The story was lauding the "good news" of the interim council, so I assumed you beleived it was something important. Now you seem to be calling this toothless body a "representative government" -- with only adivsory (i.e., no) power. The reason that Iraq's future government will not be representative is that it will be dominated by U.S. appointees who, under U.S. dictated law, will hold office regardless of who wins the 2005 elections. The U.S. military will also continue to occupy the country and operate outside the bounds of Iraqi law, as it does now, making the who notion of Iraqi sovereignty a joke. And, of course, the reconsturction aid that Iraq needs to function will all remain under the control of the U.S.

You're assuming the same country that helped bring to power and maintain Saddam has turned over some new leaf and wants to transfer power to Iraqis even when it doesn't have to. It's naive. You seem to believe it only because the government and the government supporting press tell you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me the law that says US appointees will still have positions after the elections of 2005. And yes the US military will be around for a while longer. My guess is that once the government has fully transitioned. That will probably help guarantee Iraq sovereignty by keeping order until the Iraqi government apparatus is in place. Of course I am sure that you would be the first one to cry out in protest if the US did completely pull out right now and the country went high order. I am sure you would be complaining about how the US abandoned Iraq and didnt finish the job.

I may be naive but I prefer to believe in peoples good intentions until they prove otherwise. Must be hard carrying around all that paranoia and pessimism.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ask somebody random when Iraq finally got a public sanitation department working, for the first time in their history

[/ QUOTE ]
They'd probably say about 100 years ago, and they'd be right. By the 1980's, Iraq's public sanitation system was exemplary among developing countries and directly contributed to its extremely low infant mortality rate. That is, until the U.S. bombed it during the Gulf War, spearheaded the crippling of Iraq with sanctions and bombed it again during the most recent aggression.


[/ QUOTE ]

I mistyped. Been up way too long. They had sewage, but did they have city wide garbage collection to be exact? Or are you saying this link is wrong?

Garbage Collection (http://cpa.gov/pressreleases/PR17aug03garbcoll.html)

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you're implying some kind of Khmer Rouge "year zero" concept where a country's history begins only when the U.S. takes over, your statement is nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think of me like that. If I'm wrong, I will admit it. I've done it before, and I will most likely do it again. I am here to discuss/debate with the goal of educating myself, as well as others. Debate is very good at accomplishing that.

[vulturesrow]

How do you bomb a sanitation system? Are you suggesting that the military planners thought a sewage plant had a high military value?

[Cyrus]

"If I'm wrong, I will admit it."

Well, you were wrong about Iraq. But, to make you feel better, know that the vast majority of Americans have totally false ideas of what Iraq is or was. (And some, even where it is!)

Iraq had a vast, relatively well-off, educated, secular middle class. The country's eductaional system, its infrastructire, its oil production facilities were all excellent. It was actually "exporting" engineers and doctors to other Arab countries. The regime was nationalistic and dictatorial and the ideology pseudo-socialist. The only problem with such a regime for the United States (which usually loves "partners" like this) was that Iraq was fanatically, paranoically anti-Israeli. That's all there is to it. That's why those Americans are dying over there - to protect Israel. Not the United States. The US was never under any threat, directly or indirectly, from the regime of Saddam Hussein. (If anything, Saddam was for quite some time a client of Washington.)

That's right, Saddam (who was not a fool) was no threat to American security, or, for that matter, American interests. Removing him was the cornerstone of the post-Cold War American policy in the Middle East, as envisioned by the right-wing, pro-Israeli hawks that have hijacked GOP foreign policy.