Iraq-Not safe to report News

[mrbowler]

Ok..I guess this explains why coverage has been more limited..does anyone have some uplifting/positive stories? Maybe the media is just bias, and doesn't want to report the good news.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1003122985

'NYT' War Reporter: 'Anarchy' Curtails Reporting in Iraq :


Published: September 16, 2006 1:30 PM

NEW YORK Journalists are in danger everywhere in Iraq these days, making it nearly impossible to report, and it only seems to be getting worse, said New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, speaking Thursday at the offices of the Committee to Protect Journalists in Manhattan. Filkins, who will begin a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University this month and start work on a book, said that 98% of Iraq, and even most of Baghdad, has now become "off-limits" for Western journalists.

Filkins, one of the longest-lasting and most-honored reporters in Iraq, said that many situations lately have become even too dangerous for Iraqi reporters to report on. He described the current climate as "anarchy," and, when asked if the country was already involved in a civil war, he said, "Yeah, sure."

Asked what advice he had for a reporter from a small paper going to Iraq now without the kinds of money and backup that the Times was able to afford him (or previous reporting experience in Iraq), Filkins replied: "Don't go."

The most that Times reporters can do these days, said Filkins, is "very carefully set up an appointment with someone" using back channels and meet with them under tight security. "We can't go to car bombings anymore," he said, describing how even getting out of a vehicle to report would expose a Western journalist to mob attacks and kidnapping.

As a result, the paper increasingly relies on its 70 Iraqi staffers to go out into the streets and do the actual reporting. These Iraqi journalists, both Sunni and Shiite, do "everything" according to Filkins, and are paid handsomely (by local standards) for their efforts. But they live in constant fear of their association with the newspaper being exposed, which could cost them their lives.

"Most of the Iraqis who work for us don't even tell their families that they work for us," said Filkins. "It's terribly terribly dangerous for them."

He estimated that there are probably 50 murders and 20 to 30 kidnappings in Baghdad every day, and said that it had gotten to the point where it was no longer just Sunni-Shiite clashes or insurgent mayhem. "Nobody trusts anybody anymore," he said. "There's no law, and the worst people with guns are in charge."

According to Filkins, the New York Times is burning through money "like jet fuel" simply to securely maintain its operations in the country. In addition to the 70 local reporters and translators, the Times employs 45 full-time Kalashnikov-toting security guards to patrol its two blast-wall-enclosed houses -- and oversee belt-fed machine-guns on the roofs of the buildings. The paper also has three armored cars, and pays a hefty premium each month to insure the five Times reporters working there.

American journalists, he said, spend their days piecing together scraps of information from the Iraqi reporters to construct a picture, albeit incomplete, of what life is like these days in the war-torn country. But he says that the work is slow and difficult, and it is hard in such an atmosphere for reporters to nail down specifics. "Five people doing a run-of-the-mill story takes forever," he said.

Most troubling was Filkins' assessment that the U.S. military may not know much more than the Times does about what life is like on the ground in Iraq. Soldiers barely leave their bases and they don't interact very much with average Iraqis, he said, so it is hard to say who, if anyone, has an accurate picture of the current situation.

"Everyone is kind of groping around in the dark," he said.

[FUNdamental]

I watched the debate last night between Virginia’s “Simple George,” and, “I am better at geography than you,” Jim Webb, and they didn’t exactly bring any bold new ideas about Iraq. George Allen wants to “stay the course” (because we all know how much he loves civil wars), and Webb wants to redeploy and solve this thing through diplomatic channels, calling Iraq’s neighbors into the negotiation mix and referencing the Iraq issue as a regional problem so to get support of the major players in Middle East for making Iraq a stable and safe place (or, in Republican-speak “cut and run”).

Good news, though, the Iraqi “immigration minister” said this morning at least 890,000 Iraqis have already fled the country and more are leaving every day. Somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 have been killed in either the invasion, occupation or current religious war, and an average of 100 Iraqi’s are shot or blown up with each new day. And just this week, a new weapon to worry about was unleashed on Iraqi uniformed forces causing over 1,200 Iraqi troops and police officers to go to the hospital with severe food poisoning.

Can I hear everybody say

"So Happy It’s Tuesday!"

At this rate, the Iraqi troops will not ever have to stand up because there will not be any Iraqi’s left on Iraqi soil to protect by the end of the current Bush Administration!

When Bob Woodward tells us the administration isn’t giving us the whole truth on Iraq, do you believe him?

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

I watched the debate last night between Virginia’s “Simple George,” and, “I am better at geography than you,” Jim Webb, and they didn’t exactly bring any bold new ideas about Iraq. George Allen wants to “stay the course” (because we all know how much he loves civil wars), and Webb wants to redeploy and solve this thing through diplomatic channels, calling Iraq’s neighbors into the negotiation mix and referencing the Iraq issue as a regional problem so to get support of the major players in Middle East for making Iraq a stable and safe place (or, in Republican-speak “cut and run”).

Well from a republican perspective-if the democrats were able to gain control of congress or at least made a case in which you can blame the democrats for pulling troops out of iraq(withdrawl, cut & run, redeploy-pick your word), and provides cover, and later you can do the "blame game" on democrats for creating whatever situation might develop on the ground in Iraq. And the democrats would counter that they received the situation long before. Funny-it's almost a situation in which it might be better for republicans to actually lose in November either the house or senate-not sure about both.
The picture seems to become clearer each passing day. Will Iraq be divided into 3 sections or will a full blown civil war develop which is supported by Iran in which the U.S. might be forced to go after Iran-I think the first scenario is much more acceptable to the american public then the second. At least with the first scenario the U.S. still might have a partner with the Kurds, and they do control the Oil although some type of agreement would need to be worked out, but when all sides start to look at $$$ they might come to some working agreement. Whew!

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

Good news, though, the Iraqi “immigration minister” said this morning at least 890,000 Iraqis have already fled the country and more are leaving every day. Somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 have been killed in either the invasion, occupation or current religious war, and an average of 100 Iraqi’s are shot or blown up with each new day. And just this week, a new weapon to worry about was unleashed on Iraqi uniformed forces causing over 1,200 Iraqi troops and police officers to go to the hospital with severe food poisoning.

You can't blame the average Iraqi for wanting to get out of dodge.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
From a Iraqi Reporter:
"Fear dictates everything we do"

Couple Months Old:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1779414,00.html
"Look, a full-scale civil war will break out in the next few months. The Kurds only care about their independence. We the Sunnis will be crushed - the Shia have more fighters and they are better organised, and have more than one leadership. They are supported by the Iranians

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

When Bob Woodward tells us the administration isn’t giving us the whole truth on Iraq, do you believe him?

I think the administration is in a position in which before they could report about progress, milestones reached (government, elections, train iraqis). They may have reached a point in which the Iraqi government is unable to pull the division of ethnic groups together, and the Adm. is stuck in a position of either coming clean or shifting blame(failure) on the Iraqi government or unpatriotic folks(democrats) Of course maybe they just didn't have a vision of how this would unfold-when people look back on this-I would imagine that some positives have come about, but was it worth it? Only time will tell.

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

Good news, though, the Iraqi “immigration minister” said this morning at least 890,000 Iraqis have already fled the country and more are leaving every day.

Try 1.6 million Iraqis are living abroad, and 50,000 flee every month

http://195.224.230.11/english/?id=17847

"More than 365,000 people have fled their homes in Iraqi since sectarian violence intensified February, the United Nations said this week"