![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My head hurts...
Mar. 20th, 2003 05:47 pm...and not just from my cold.
Watching the coverage of the war, I'm constantly having to do double and triple think to filter out the facts from the conjectures.
Examples. All the folks referring to the missiles launched at Kuwait as "Scuds". this involved an *assumption*. And it did prove to be false. They turned out to be a different missile. One that Saddam *was* allowed to have.
But even people in the Army were saying that they were *definitely* Scuds, *hours* after the correct info was available. (Lesson, just because someone is an officer or a spokesman *doesn't* mean that they have correct info)
This was also an important detail. If they *had* been Scuds, the matter of whether or not Saddam had been lying would have been settled conclusively.
Also, it allowed Iraq's Information Minister to "answer" questions about the missiles by saying "Iraq has no Scuds". And thus sidestepping the issue of the launching of the missiles (justifiable, but the targeting may have been a bit questionable if Iraq wants to keep claiming the moral high ground)
It's hard work keeping in mind the reasons why what is being said may be deliberate misinformation, mistaken information, or outright lies.
the idea of having the news people "embedded" in military units looks to be a good one, though not for the reasons most intended. It was obviously intended to encourage them to be careful what they say, since *they* will be in the target zone if they reveal too much.
But it is also (for those who have the eyes to see) showing how *limited* the information that the folks "on the scene" have at any given time. This is cutting *way* down on the "pontificating" by the big name news anchors and analysts. Which I think is a good thing.
Now if we could get them to quit talking to fill space...:-(
On the home front, I was watching coverage of some local (Portland, Or) demonstrations.
I really do *not* understand the folks who try to "protest" by disrupting traffic, or attacking (verbally or physically) folks demonstrating for a "different (and not necessarily opposed!) viewpoint.
Why can't they see that this sort of thing doesn't *help* their cause? At *best* things like typing up traffic *annoys* people. Which predisposes them to be *against* whatever you are for.
And attacking other people? That tends to do similar things. Yet time after time people do it.
Worse yet, the folks in the "anti-war" group getting into screaming matches with the folks in the "support the troops" group... The ones I could hear were obviously unable to conceive of the idea that even if the war is wrong, it's *not* the fault of the troops. And that the troops *do* need support by the public.
And a few of the "support the troops" folks who were on the other side of the shouting... They should have been in a "pro-war" rally. One clearly had "support the troops" confused with "blindly support the President". :-(
A pox on both their houses.
Other random thoughts.
A "fact" that is quite revealing if true. There's several billion in the "oil for food" fund that they UN is administering for Iraq.As I understand it, this is money from the oil Iraq is allowed to sell, but can only be used for food, medicine, and other "humanitarian" purposes.
Yet at the same time, the smaller villages, especially in northern Iraq, generally have worse medical and drinking water infrastructure than many third world countries. Things like *no* safe drinking water, for example.
*Why* isn't that money being used to improve those villages?
Again, assuming these facts are true (seems likely, even if it does make Saddam look bad), it's more than a bit revealing of his priorities.
Watching the coverage of the war, I'm constantly having to do double and triple think to filter out the facts from the conjectures.
Examples. All the folks referring to the missiles launched at Kuwait as "Scuds". this involved an *assumption*. And it did prove to be false. They turned out to be a different missile. One that Saddam *was* allowed to have.
But even people in the Army were saying that they were *definitely* Scuds, *hours* after the correct info was available. (Lesson, just because someone is an officer or a spokesman *doesn't* mean that they have correct info)
This was also an important detail. If they *had* been Scuds, the matter of whether or not Saddam had been lying would have been settled conclusively.
Also, it allowed Iraq's Information Minister to "answer" questions about the missiles by saying "Iraq has no Scuds". And thus sidestepping the issue of the launching of the missiles (justifiable, but the targeting may have been a bit questionable if Iraq wants to keep claiming the moral high ground)
It's hard work keeping in mind the reasons why what is being said may be deliberate misinformation, mistaken information, or outright lies.
the idea of having the news people "embedded" in military units looks to be a good one, though not for the reasons most intended. It was obviously intended to encourage them to be careful what they say, since *they* will be in the target zone if they reveal too much.
But it is also (for those who have the eyes to see) showing how *limited* the information that the folks "on the scene" have at any given time. This is cutting *way* down on the "pontificating" by the big name news anchors and analysts. Which I think is a good thing.
Now if we could get them to quit talking to fill space...:-(
On the home front, I was watching coverage of some local (Portland, Or) demonstrations.
I really do *not* understand the folks who try to "protest" by disrupting traffic, or attacking (verbally or physically) folks demonstrating for a "different (and not necessarily opposed!) viewpoint.
Why can't they see that this sort of thing doesn't *help* their cause? At *best* things like typing up traffic *annoys* people. Which predisposes them to be *against* whatever you are for.
And attacking other people? That tends to do similar things. Yet time after time people do it.
Worse yet, the folks in the "anti-war" group getting into screaming matches with the folks in the "support the troops" group... The ones I could hear were obviously unable to conceive of the idea that even if the war is wrong, it's *not* the fault of the troops. And that the troops *do* need support by the public.
And a few of the "support the troops" folks who were on the other side of the shouting... They should have been in a "pro-war" rally. One clearly had "support the troops" confused with "blindly support the President". :-(
A pox on both their houses.
Other random thoughts.
A "fact" that is quite revealing if true. There's several billion in the "oil for food" fund that they UN is administering for Iraq.As I understand it, this is money from the oil Iraq is allowed to sell, but can only be used for food, medicine, and other "humanitarian" purposes.
Yet at the same time, the smaller villages, especially in northern Iraq, generally have worse medical and drinking water infrastructure than many third world countries. Things like *no* safe drinking water, for example.
*Why* isn't that money being used to improve those villages?
Again, assuming these facts are true (seems likely, even if it does make Saddam look bad), it's more than a bit revealing of his priorities.
