Russian Point of View of Recent US Iraq Pullout

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

They're checking the fences. I wonder how many Russian newspapers carry stories of every US and Canadian challenge to THEIR airspace. It's a dance....

^ I decided to delve onto an online Russian news site to see if they had information relating to the above comment Wolf made, when I stumbled upon this article:

White House Withdraws Combat Brigade from Iraq as Plain Propaganda Action
White House Withdraws Combat Brigade from Iraq as Plain Propaganda Action - Pravda.Ru (external - login to view)


Washington has announced the completion of the combat mission of its armed forces in Iraq. This is how the withdrawal of the supposedly last combat brigade of US troops from Iraq to Kuwait was presented to the world public. An official spokesman for the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, said that the last armored vehicles had crossed the border between Iraq and Kuwait early Thursday.
Obama said in a written statement that he was hoping that all Americans would thank the troops for their service in Iraq. Do those words really mean that the USA has ended the war in Iraq?
Operation "Shock and Awe", which marked the beginning of the US-led invasion in Iraq seven years ago, has only resulted in the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. The United States has not been able to build democracy in the war-torn country. Figuratively speaking, there is no more shock in Iraq, but both the population and the military men are still gripped with awe.
No one can feel safe in Iraq today. The number of terrorist attacks in the country has been growing steadily. One can easily understand the joy of 4,000 soldiers of the 4th Stryker Brigade, who were finally allowed to leave the country where they were not welcome. They have the luxury of staying alive, although 4,200 US military men will never return to their homes. About 30,000 American soldiers returned to the homeland as physically disabled individuals. ...

Quote has been trimmed
Now it could have been just that particular web site, but I also stumbled upon a few other Russian news sites that seem to have similar "Attitudes" towards not just Iraq, but the EU, the US, and pretty much anybody else who's not a close ally.

Though the above report does make some logical points about this specific withdraw in relation to the upcoming US elections and the fact that there's still some 50,000 US troops remaining in Iraq (just re-worded as "advise & assist" for technicality-sake)...... it also makes me wonder if our own government plans to pull a similar stunt when it comes time to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
That's not a sole Russian perspective, I've read the same opinions on democracynow website for instance, which is American.
I read Pravda regularly. They are a pretty good source of information except for anything to do with Russia. The Russians don't mind pointing out American and Chinese dirty laundry, but don't expect them to expose their own. But if you read from a variety of sources, you get a pretty good idea of what going on. I also recommend Xinhua (China), Al Jazeera, and Haaretz:

Xinhua - English (external - login to view)

AJE - Al Jazeera English (external - login to view)

Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News source. (external - login to view)
I read this column regularly:
Gideon Levy - Israeli News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper (external - login to view)

Some international news sources are as bad as American cable news in their own way. For example Hezbollah's Al Manar
Al-ManarTV :: News (external - login to view)

The more sources you reference, the more likely you are to have an accurate and unbiased opinion.
Quote: Originally Posted by CUBertView Post

That's not a sole Russian perspective, I've read the same opinions on democracynow website for instance, which is American.

Yeah, you'll see that perspective re-iterated on many international news forums, including quite a few anchored in the US. There's nothing startling or new about any of that.

I remember reading a study back in 1980, written by Republican apologists, about why the US should support Saddam Hussein.

The Iran-Iraq war was still raging, and Iran had a much bigger population (60 million to Iraq's 14 million) so the west was selling arms to Iraq at a rate that would keep the conflict going indefinitely (good for arms sales, and it made at least one other US-ally in the region feel more comfortable that two nations it didn't like were clobbering each other), but a lot of people in the US didn't like the idea that they were supporting a leader like Hussein who made no secret of his hero being Joseph Stalin.

The Republican-sponsored report said Hussein's form of tough "authority" was the only way to maintain order in Iraq, what with the Sunni/Shi'ite division, the Kurds, etc. etc., and that without his kind of "authoritative rule", Iraq would collapse into a state of erratic-chaos, which would be bad for its citizens and bad for the stability of global petroleum supplies.

I've always thought it kind'a ironic... that: 1) Bush Jr. was acting opposite to what had been official Republican policy towards Hussein twenty years earlier, and 2) that the original Republican report about what would happen in Iraq without a Hussein ended up being almost spot-on.
Last edited by Omicron; Aug 27th, 2010 at 04:31 PM..
no new posts