Planetarion Forums

Perle · 27 Mar 2003, 20:15

Hello vermillon
you seem to be the most informed user in this forum.
I have been following the coverage of the war very intensely.
Now, much of the coverage have been very very doubtfull.
One does not get a very accurate of what is actually going on. Specially of the casualties on both sides, the reports , as one might expect, seem to be false .
Now, I have come accros the following site :http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news078.htm

Although the site is very much biased towards the iraqee site, it seems to give an accurate analysis of how the war is proceeding in Iraq.

How do you, and other members of this forum, evaluate the site above??

Vermillion · 27 Mar 2003, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Perle
you seem to be the most informed user in this forum.

Flattering, if perhaps excessive. Let us say that I am one of the most informed users in this forum in certain fields.

Anyway...

In terms of presentation of the conduct of the war the report I read (I did not bother going back to previous reports) is not bad, but is obviously lightly skewed towards the Iraqi side.

An unknowing third party reading this would think it was an evenly matched conflict, when obviously it is not. The bias is slight, but still there. Examples:

-"As the result of this attack the US forces have been thrown back 1.5-2 kilometres leaving the airport and the nearby structures in the hands of the Iraqis. According to radio intelligence at least two US soldiers were killed and no less than six US soldiers were wounded."

It is extremely unlikely that the US forces were 'Thrown back' two kilometres, if they only took eight casualties. More likely the Americans withdrew in good order for other reasons.

-"it was reported that up to 20 Iraqi reconnaissance units are active behind the coalition rear."

That makes it sound like some organised strategy, when the reality is the majority of these are bands of stragglers and irregulars, left behind by the pace of war. A small distinction, but an important one.

The text uses loaded language, but in general terms is pretty good. Despite the phraseology, the statistics and numbers jive with what I have seen cross my desk. I would not use this site as a central source for the war, but it does seem to present a decent account of the facts, if couched in slightly biased language.

I have been following the coverage of the war very intensely.
Now, much of the coverage have been very very doubtfull.
One does not get a very accurate of what is actually going on. Specially of the casualties on both sides, the reports , as one might expect, seem to be false .
Now, I have come accros the following site :http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news078.htm

Although the site is very much biased towards the iraqee site, it seems to give an accurate analysis of how the war is proceeding in Iraq.

How do you, and other members of this forum, evaluate the site above?? [/b][/quote]

Perle · 27 Mar 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Vermillion
[b]Flattering, if perhaps excessive. Let us say that I am one of the most informed users in this forum in certain fields.

Anyway...

In terms of presentation of the conduct of the war the report I read (I did not bother going back to previous reports) is not bad, but is obviously lightly skewed towards the Iraqi side.

The bias is very obvious.
what I want to know is, if the number of casualties and events described are correct or are they also fabrications??
And what about the "intercepted radio" reports they keep referring to??

Quote:

Originally posted by Vermillion
[b]

The text uses loaded language, but in general terms is pretty good. Despite the phraseology, the statistics and numbers jive with what I have seen cross my desk. I would not use this site as a central source for the war, but it does seem to present a decent account of the facts, if couched in slightly biased language.

Is there any other internet source you would recommend?

Anaximander · 27 Mar 2003, 21:50

This site is definitely biased, but still interesting. The reasoning about the used tactics appear to be quite sensible. Much better than some of the prowar, which constantely tend to "forget" to mention occuring problems and fill the gaps with patriotism.

Dante Hicks · 27 Mar 2003, 22:01

Problem with a lot of indepedent (critical to the US) sites is they concentrate on US losses/set-backs as some sort of joy. As if it makes the war more or less immoral if the US start losing....

Anaximander · 27 Mar 2003, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Problem with a lot of indepedent (critical to the US) sites is they concentrate on US losses/set-backs as some sort of joy. As if it makes the war more or less immoral if the US start losing....

Gleeful joy, yes. They somehow forget to mention how very small and unimportant some of US losses are. So the Iraqi claimed some days ago, that they managed to shoot down 25 Cruise missiles - great, that was about 2% of the incoming.

I believe, that these sites and the ppl reading it are really fed up with the US ignoring everything, that might cause problems at the homefront. I'm very annoyed by this too. I can understand, why they will not tell everybody, where every single soldier is and what he is supposed to do next. What makes me angry is this constant mix of halftruths, lies and already known facts they're feeding us. Together with the tendency to play crywolf ("supposed Scuds", "suspected chem. weapons facility", "appeared to be executed soldiers"). And now the brits expect Saddam to use WMD because they found Gasmasks and suits. However this feeling is probably based on my biased view of the whole desaster.
The critical newssources find now extraordiniary joy in pointing out everything the pro war sites don't mention. Regardless of its relevance. Just to cause embarassment.

wu_trax · 27 Mar 2003, 22:31

i dont know how good your german is, but any comments on this analysis?
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/speci...k/14465/1.html

(no, sorry, im certainly no bored enough to translate it all

)

eple · 27 Mar 2003, 23:17

hehehehe
flattery will get you everywhere

Perle · 28 Mar 2003, 00:12

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news080.htm

damn, their new report is out.
If what they are reporting is true, the coalition has lost about 80 soldiers today.
Why is their no mention of this in the media at all??

wu_trax · 28 Mar 2003, 00:52

sounds very biased to me. i cant imagine the iraq is doing that well.

CryWolf · 28 Mar 2003, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Anaximander
Gleeful joy, yes. They somehow forget to mention how very small and unimportant some of US losses are. So the Iraqi claimed some days ago, that they managed to shoot down 25 Cruise missiles - great, that was about 2% of the incoming.

I believe, that these sites and the ppl reading it are really fed up with the US ignoring everything, that might cause problems at the homefront. I'm very annoyed by this too. I can understand, why they will not tell everybody, where every single soldier is and what he is supposed to do next. What makes me angry is this constant mix of halftruths, lies and already known facts they're feeding us. Together with the tendency to play crywolf ("supposed Scuds", "suspected chem. weapons facility", "appeared to be executed soldiers"). And now the brits expect Saddam to use WMD because they found Gasmasks and suits. However this feeling is probably based on my biased view of the whole desaster.
The critical newssources find now extraordiniary joy in pointing out everything the pro war sites don't mention. Regardless of its relevance. Just to cause embarassment.

oy.. stop shouting my name ;-P