Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

More democrate bullshit to make Bush look bad.

I don't know if I'd necessarily call it censorship (though I guess it technically fits the definition).

I'd call it 'ratings grubbing whores.' Of course, that's what the country is built on and what made it great. You have to take the good with the bad, though.

The American media just wants Britain's Troops back,and on another note Georgia Is a surprisingly strong nation

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

Better stop reading and watching the news from now on

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

The American media will not cover anything that will make Bush look good, in any way.

Originally posted by Soleran
Better stop reading and watching the news from now on

That'd be an extremely stupid thing to do... Best to keep on reading the news and not stick to any single news outlet, read domestic and foreign news and then come to your own conclusions.

Originally posted by Robtard
That'd be an extremely stupid thing to do... Best to keep on reading the news and not stick to any single news outlet, read domestic and foreign news and then come to your own conclusions.


Yeah, from now on I'll make sure to put a sarcasm smilie on my posts for you though.

I have no problem with it....send all the Republicans you want to fight thier own war...the more Conservatives or potential Conservatives dead, the better.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I have no problem with it....send all the Republicans you want to fight thier own war...the more Conservatives or potential Conservatives dead, the better.

A Republic does not mean they are Republican. hysterical

Originally posted by Soleran
Yeah, from now on I'll make sure to put a sarcasm smilie on my posts for you though.

Yeah, best to do that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A Republic does not mean they are Republican. hysterical




The what ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The what ?

Did you know that the USA was a Republic?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you know that the USA was a Republic?





A WHAT ??!?!? WTF !!! GET OUTTA HERE !!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

So England is withdrawing 1600 troops and Georgia is bringing their total to 1700? That would still mean more troops are leaving then coming..

Besides there is a huge difference between a country like Georgia sending troops to Iraq and England withdrawing them. If England would have send more troops they would have made a story about it as well....

England was one of the two country's that started this war, the biggest follower of the United States through the entire war and their most important ally in trying to convince the rest of the world that the war was juts, what is Georgia again?

Originally posted by Fishy
So England is withdrawing 1600 troops and Georgia is bringing their total to 1700? That would still mean more troops are leaving then coming..

Besides there is a huge difference between a country like Georgia sending troops to Iraq and England withdrawing them. If England would have send more troops they would have made a story about it as well....

England was one of the two country's that started this war, the biggest follower of the United States through the entire war and their most important ally in trying to convince the rest of the world that the war was juts, what is Georgia again?

No, Georgia is bringing in 1700 more , bringing their total to a little over 2500.

Is there? People fighting is people fighting, don't downplay the Georgians as sub-par troops. Not so sure about that, it's possible, but since it hasn't happens, we'll never know until.

Actually more countries than just the U.S. and England were at the start. And again, why are you trying to downplay the Georgians as sub-par troops?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, Georgia is bringing in 1700 more , bringing their total to a little over 2500.

Is there? People fighting is people fighting, don't downplay the Georgians as sub-par troops. Not so sure about that, it's possible, but since it hasn't happens, we'll never know until.

Actually more countries than just the U.S. and England were at the start. And again, why are you trying to downplay the Georgians as sub-par troops?

I'm not trying to downplay their troops, I am saying that no matter who they are, they are not America's it's biggest ally and supporter in this war. They are just another country in a long list of them. Fact also remains more country's have withdrawn then added troops and if England would have send more troops it would have been in the news as well.

But the signal of a country like England withdrawing it's troops is just a thousand times more powerful then the signal of a country like Georgia sending more troops.

^^^Yep, it's a signal that the area that those troops were in is more or less secure and Iraqi forces can take over.

This has been stated repeatedly, and no matter your take on the war it shows nothing other than a success in that area that some of the Coalition forces are no longer needed there.

Originally posted by KidRock
More democrate bullshit to make Bush look bad.

While it's somewhat ironic that you can spell Bush and not democrat, it's a mistake that could be easily made by anyone.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^Yep, it's a signal that the area that those troops were in is more or less secure and Iraqi forces can take over.

This has been stated repeatedly, and no matter your take on the war it shows nothing other than a success in that area that some of the Coalition forces are no longer needed there.

Only you could get away with repeating a FOX News soundbite. There have been areas of Iraq that have been pretty much under control since the beginning of the invasion.

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
57 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half.


The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — favored targets of car bombers.

There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.

But while many Iraqis are encouraged, they remain skeptical how long the relative calm will last. Each bombing renews fears that the horror is returning. Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents are still around, perhaps just lying low or hiding outside the city until the operation is over.

U.S. military officials, burned before by overly optimistic forecasts, have been cautious about declaring the operation a success. Another reason it seems premature: only two of the five U.S. brigades earmarked for the mission are in the streets, and the full complement of American reinforcements is not due until late May.

U.S. officials say that key to the operation's long-term success is the willingness of Iraq's sectarian and ethnic political parties to strike a power- and money-sharing deal. That remains elusive — a proposal for governing the country's main source of income — oil — is bogged down in parliamentary squabbling.

Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs.

Gone are the "illegal checkpoints," where Shiite and Sunni gunmen stopped cars and hauled away members of the rival sect — often to a gruesome torture and death.

The rattle of automatic weapons fire or the rumble of distant roadside bombs comes less frequently. Traffic is beginning to return to the city's once vacant streets.

"People are very optimistic because they sense a development. The level of sectarian violence in streets and areas has decreased," said a 50-year-old Shiite, who gave his name only as Abu Abbas, or "father of Abbas." "The activities of the militias have also decreased. The car bombs and the suicide attacks are the only things left, while other kinds of violence have decreased."

In the months before the security operation began Feb. 14, police were finding dozens of bodies each day in the capital — victims of Sunni and Shiite death squads. Last December, more than 200 bodies were found each week — with the figure spiking above 300 in some weeks, according to police reports compiled by The Associated Press.

Since the crackdown began, weekly totals have dropped to about 80 — hardly an acceptable figure but clearly a sign that death squads are no longer as active as they were in the final months of last year.

Bombings too have decreased in the city, presumably due to U.S. and Iraqi success in finding weapons caches and to more government checkpoints in the streets that make it tougher to deliver the bombs.

In the 27 days leading up to the operation, 528 people were killed in bombings around the capital, according to AP figures. In the first 27 days of the operation, the bombing death toll stood at 370 — a drop of about 30 percent.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made a show of confidence Tuesday by traveling out of Baghdad for meetings with Sunni tribal leaders and government officials in Ramadi, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents.

"I would caution everybody about patience, about diligence," U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell said Wednesday. "This is going to take many months, not weeks, but the indicators are all very positive right now."

Figures alone won't tell the story. In Vietnam, generals kept pointing to enemy body counts to promote a picture of success even when many U.S. soldiers and civilian officials realized the effort was doomed.

True success will be when Iraqis themselves begin to feel safe and gain confidence in their government and security forces. Only then can the economy, long on its heels and with unemployment estimated between 25 and 40 percent, rebound and start providing jobs and a future for Baghdad's people.

A long-term solution also must deal with the militias that sprang up after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Much of the relative calm may be due to a decision by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to remove his armed militiamen, known as the Mahdi Army, from the streets. Al-Maliki warned the young cleric that he could not protect them from the Americans during the offensive.

U.S. troops rolled into the Mahdi stronghold of Sadr City on March 4 without firing a shot — a radical change from street battles there in 2004.

Some Mahdi Army fighters may have left the city. But Iraqis who live in Shiite neighborhoods say many others are still around, collecting protection money from shopkeepers and keeping tabs on people — albeit without their guns.

When American patrols pass by, Mahdi members step into shops or disappear into crowds until the U.S. troops are gone. Sunni militants remain in some areas of the city too, although last year's sectarian bloodletting drove many Sunnis from their traditional neighborhoods, depriving extremists of a support network.

Sunni militants, meanwhile, are believed to have withdrawn to surrounding areas such as Diyala province where they have safe haven. The U.S. command sent an extra 700 soldiers Tuesday to protect the highways leading into the capital from there.

If militants from both sects are indeed lying low, that suggests they may have adopted a strategy of waiting until the security operation is over, then re-emerging to fight each other for control of the capital.

Conscious of that possibility, new U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus and other senior generals avoid setting a date for when the operation would end. They insist the extra troops will stay as long as they are needed.

And they say the military will continue to track down key militia and insurgent figures, in hopes of crippling the leadership of insurgent groups before they attempt to re-emerge.

"You generally think that if you're going to achieve (the desired results), that it would need to be sustained certainly for some time well beyond summer," Petraeus told reporters last week.

The No. 2 commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, has recommended that the buildup stretch longer, into the early months of 2008 — if Congress will provide the money.

But positive trends in Iraq have proven hard to sustain. Hopes for reconciliation are quickly shattered. There have been a series of failed security initiatives.

With so many uncertainties, public opinion appears mixed.

"We gain nothing from this government. No change," said Abu Zeinab, a Shiite father of two in Baghdad's Hurriyah district. "Today is like yesterday. What is the difference?"

In eastern Baghdad, one homeowner whose house was seized by the family of a Shiite militiaman gained enough confidence to tell them to leave or he would turn them in to the Americans — unthinkable only a few weeks ago.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_baghdad_security

ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
57 minutes ago

---->BAGHDAD<--- - Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half.


The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — favored targets of car bombers.

There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.

But while many Iraqis are encouraged, they remain skeptical how long the relative calm will last. Each bombing renews fears that the horror is returning. Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents are still around, perhaps just lying low or hiding outside the city until the operation is over.

U.S. military officials, burned before by overly optimistic forecasts, have been cautious about declaring the operation a success. Another reason it seems premature: only two of the five U.S. brigades earmarked for the mission are in the streets, and the full complement of American reinforcements is not due until late May.

U.S. officials say that key to the operation's long-term success is the willingness of Iraq's sectarian and ethnic political parties to strike a power- and money-sharing deal. That remains elusive — a proposal for governing the country's main source of income — oil — is bogged down in parliamentary squabbling.

Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs.

Gone are the "illegal checkpoints," where Shiite and Sunni gunmen stopped cars and hauled away members of the rival sect — often to a gruesome torture and death.

The rattle of automatic weapons fire or the rumble of distant roadside bombs comes less frequently. Traffic is beginning to return to the city's once vacant streets.

"People are very optimistic because they sense a development. The level of sectarian violence in streets and areas has decreased," said a 50-year-old Shiite, who gave his name only as Abu Abbas, or "father of Abbas." "The activities of the militias have also decreased. The car bombs and the suicide attacks are the only things left, while other kinds of violence have decreased."

In the months before the security operation began Feb. 14, police were finding dozens of bodies each day in the capital — victims of Sunni and Shiite death squads. Last December, more than 200 bodies were found each week — with the figure spiking above 300 in some weeks, according to police reports compiled by The Associated Press.

Since the crackdown began, weekly totals have dropped to about 80 — hardly an acceptable figure but clearly a sign that death squads are no longer as active as they were in the final months of last year.

Bombings too have decreased in the city, presumably due to U.S. and Iraqi success in finding weapons caches and to more government checkpoints in the streets that make it tougher to deliver the bombs.

In the 27 days leading up to the operation, 528 people were killed in bombings around the capital, according to AP figures. In the first 27 days of the operation, the bombing death toll stood at 370 — a drop of about 30 percent.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made a show of confidence Tuesday by traveling out of Baghdad for meetings with Sunni tribal leaders and government officials in Ramadi, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents.

"I would caution everybody about patience, about diligence," U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell said Wednesday. "This is going to take many months, not weeks, but the indicators are all very positive right now."

Figures alone won't tell the story. In Vietnam, generals kept pointing to enemy body counts to promote a picture of success even when many U.S. soldiers and civilian officials realized the effort was doomed.

True success will be when Iraqis themselves begin to feel safe and gain confidence in their government and security forces. Only then can the economy, long on its heels and with unemployment estimated between 25 and 40 percent, rebound and start providing jobs and a future for Baghdad's people.

A long-term solution also must deal with the militias that sprang up after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Much of the relative calm may be due to a decision by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to remove his armed militiamen, known as the Mahdi Army, from the streets. Al-Maliki warned the young cleric that he could not protect them from the Americans during the offensive.

U.S. troops rolled into the Mahdi stronghold of Sadr City on March 4 without firing a shot — a radical change from street battles there in 2004.

Some Mahdi Army fighters may have left the city. But Iraqis who live in Shiite neighborhoods say many others are still around, collecting protection money from shopkeepers and keeping tabs on people — albeit without their guns.

When American patrols pass by, Mahdi members step into shops or disappear into crowds until the U.S. troops are gone. Sunni militants remain in some areas of the city too, although last year's sectarian bloodletting drove many Sunnis from their traditional neighborhoods, depriving extremists of a support network.

Sunni militants, meanwhile, are believed to have withdrawn to surrounding areas such as Diyala province where they have safe haven. The U.S. command sent an extra 700 soldiers Tuesday to protect the highways leading into the capital from there.

If militants from both sects are indeed lying low, that suggests they may have adopted a strategy of waiting until the security operation is over, then re-emerging to fight each other for control of the capital.

Conscious of that possibility, new U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus and other senior generals avoid setting a date for when the operation would end. They insist the extra troops will stay as long as they are needed.

And they say the military will continue to track down key militia and insurgent figures, in hopes of crippling the leadership of insurgent groups before they attempt to re-emerge.

"You generally think that if you're going to achieve (the desired results), that it would need to be sustained certainly for some time well beyond summer," Petraeus told reporters last week.

The No. 2 commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, has recommended that the buildup stretch longer, into the early months of 2008 — if Congress will provide the money.

But positive trends in Iraq have proven hard to sustain. Hopes for reconciliation are quickly shattered. There have been a series of failed security initiatives.

With so many uncertainties, public opinion appears mixed.

"We gain nothing from this government. No change," said Abu Zeinab, a Shiite father of two in Baghdad's Hurriyah district. "Today is like yesterday. What is the difference?"

In eastern Baghdad, one homeowner whose house was seized by the family of a Shiite militiaman gained enough confidence to tell them to leave or he would turn them in to the Americans — unthinkable only a few weeks ago.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_baghdad_security

If this were relevant to our topic, it would read as follows:



IRAQ(not Baghdad) - Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in IRAQ(not Baghdad) since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half.

The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — favored targets of car bombers.

There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city. etc, etc etc...

Rather than saying:

Only you could get away with repeating a FOX News soundbite. There have been areas of Iraq that have been pretty much under control since the beginning of the invasion.

perhaps I should have said:

Only you could get away with saying that Iraq is safer now, and that's why Bristish troops are going home, in a thread about another country sending in more troops.

I guess a country sending in more troops really means that the "MISSION" was "ACCOMPLISHED".

having ignored kidrock's usual bullshit, i gotta wonder, why would georgia commit so many troops to iraq when they are in a situation where they may be at war with russia in the next 6 months?

perhaps the bigger irony is that while the UK withdrew 1600 troops from Iraq...3 days after the announcment they further announced that they were sending another 2000 to Afghanistan

I would hardly call Iraq safer with an average of 1047 attacks on Coalition lead forces a week in the previous two months... That is excluding the attacks the Americans didn't report...

Which could be a lot.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion.

To be fair the media didn't really make a lot of noise as various members of the coalition of the willing pulled out.

The small nations that were there only to make up numbers politically, not troop wise. If I am not mistaken there is/was like 49 members of the coalition - only 25 of which have troops actively in Iraq, with something like 17 having withdrawn what they had sent since the mission was "accomplished."

The media, here at least, hasn't exactly spent pages reporting the Tonga or Portugal withdrawal. Now for that matter that Romania I believe wants to withdraw. Nor that the Australian government has considered sending more troops to aid in training. Nor for that matter when the war first began did many media outlets put a great deal of coverage on the types of nations beyond the US and Britain that were supporting the war. Not that I'm not saying Slovakia isn't worth considering a major ally or anything of course.

I think we should just face the fact the media has veered from one stance (never questioning of coalition policy) to another (constantly questioning coalition policy) over the course of the war.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think we should just face the fact the media has veered from one stance (never questioning of coalition policy) to another (constantly questioning coalition policy) over the course of the war.

I agree and I thinks that's crap... The media should be neutral, just report what's there and let the viewer decide for him or her self.

Where did you get the figure of 1,700? Most media outlets I've seen in a quick google search (Reuters, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, BBC, FOXnews ) that have reported the Georgian troop increase have only gone so far as to say "more than 2000" from the current 850.

As for the surprise as to why it's not big news everywhere, that's probably because it's not big news anywhere. I doubt anyone could find Georgia on a map without a reference, I know I can't. I'm sure some people didn't even know it was the name of an Eastern European country as well as a U.S. state. I briefly thought this was about the U.S. state when I read the thread title. If Georgia had withdrew it's troops I of great doubt it would have been big news either. I can't name its head of State, and just learned the capital is called Tbilisi. The most recent news I recall about it was the 2003 'Rose Revolution' stuff, and reference to that during the "Orange Revolution' in Ukraine.

If South Korea, having the third largest contingent of troops in Iraq, changed it's troop numbers in either direction it might make a bit more of a splash - at least most people know it exists; but I doubt it.

I'd expect coverage of any major increase or decrease in Australian troops, mainly because I live in Australasia; and John Howard has been relatively overt in his support of the U.S.

But not as much as any change in British troop numbers. And that's not to be misconstrued as any slight on the quality of any of the armed forces of any of the above mentioned.

It has to do with the fact that Britain was the United States' primary ally in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It has to do with that it's the U.K., it's Tony Blair. The fact that it's a withdrawal may boost the coverage, but if it had been an increase in British troop numbers it would have most definitely been reported (and Blair's dwindling stock at home would fall even further I'd imagine).

As for why a country like Georgia, with around 10% of the U.K.'s GDP per capita (PPP), is committing such a large contingent of troop numbers; the keywords are NATO (OTAN if you live in France), oil, Train and Equip, and Russia.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Where did you get the figure of 1,700? Most media outlets I've seen in a quick google search (Reuters, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, BBC, FOXnews ) that have reported the Georgian troop increase have only gone so far as to say "more than 2000" from the current 850.

As for the surprise as to why it's not big news everywhere, that's probably because it's not big news anywhere. I doubt anyone could find Georgia on a map without a reference, I know I can't. I'm sure some people didn't even know it was the name of an Eastern European country as well as a U.S. state. I briefly thought this was about the U.S. state when I read the thread title. If Georgia had withdrew it's troops I of great doubt it would have been big news either. I can't name its head of State, and just learned the capital is called Tbilisi. The most recent news I recall about it was the 2003 'Rose Revolution' stuff, and reference to that during the "Orange Revolution' in Ukraine.

If South Korea, having the third largest contingent of troops in Iraq, changed it's troop numbers in either direction it might make a bit more of a splash - at least most people know it exists; but I doubt it.

I'd expect coverage of any major increase or decrease in Australian troops, mainly because I live in Australasia; and John Howard has been relatively overt in his support of the U.S.

But not as much as any change in British troop numbers. And that's not to be misconstrued as any slight on the quality of any of the armed forces of any of the above mentioned.

It has to do with the fact that Britain was the United States' primary ally in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It has to do with that it's the U.K., it's Tony Blair. The fact that it's a withdrawal may boost the coverage, but if it had been an increase in British troop numbers it would have most definitely been reported (and Blair's dwindling stock at home would fall even further I'd imagine).

As for why a country like Georgia, with around 10% of the U.K.'s GDP per capita (PPP), is committing such a large contingent of troop numbers; the keywords are NATO (OTAN if you live in France), oil, Train and Equip, and Russia.

It was an article from Beijing; they said an increase of 1700... If it's only 1200 now or only was 1200 to begin with, it doesn't take away from the fact that Georgia is committing more troops.

You can argue that it wasn't covered because Georgia is an unknown county, that it is small or even that it's troops are sub-par, but that fact that such a small country has committed so many resources (comparatively speaking) should be positive news, if Britain withdrawing 1500 troops was BIG news and generally reported as negative news.

Hell, Britney Spears getting a stupid haircut received coverage...

BTW... As posted previously by 'jaden101', Britain did commit 2000 more troops to Afghanistan; but that wasn't largely covered either.

Originally posted by Robtard
It was an article from Beijing; they said an increase of 1700... If it's only 1200 now or only was 1200 to begin with, it doesn't take away from the fact that Georgia is committing more troops.

You can argue that it wasn't covered because Georgia is an unknown county, that it is small or even that it's troops are sub-par, but that fact that such a small country has committed so many resources (comparatively speaking) should be news, (even minor coverage in the U.S.) if Britain withdrawing 1500 troops was BIG news.

Hell, Britney Spears getting a stupid haircut received coverage... News is a business. Your last statement pretty adequately illustrates that point. Britney Spears gets about 8x the hits in a google search than Tbilisi. If it's not going to be a sell, it's not going to be front page.

If Georgia reduced its troop numbers by half it still wouldn't have been major news. The ability of Georgia to commit such resources to the Iraq war is likely due to the GTEP.

One should ask Mr Blair why he felt the need to let the Defence Secretary announce the deployment to Afghanistan instead of including some mention of it in the announcement about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However Afghanistan hasn't really been a major news sell for a while now that I can recall.

You really think "Blair sends more British soldiers into Iraq." wouldn't make headlines?

(I'm of course referring to World media as opposed to the more America-centric U.S. media.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
News is a business. Your last statement pretty adequately illustrates that point. Britney Spears gets about 8x the hits in a google search than Tbilisi. If it's not going to be a sell, it's not going to be front page.

If Georgia reduced its troop numbers by half it still wouldn't have been major news. The ability of Georgia to commit such resources to the Iraq war is likely due to the GTEP.

One should ask Mr Blair why he felt the need to let the Defence Secretary announce the deployment to Afghanistan instead of including some mention of it in the announcement about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However Afghanistan hasn't really been a major news sell for a while now that I can recall.

You really think "Blair sends more British soldiers into Iraq." wouldn't make headlines?

(I'm of course referring to World media as opposed to the more America-centric U.S. media.

I was referring to the American new outlets and their bias... Tis the reason I watch the BBC and other world news more than I do my own country's news outlets. That was my original point.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was referring to the American new outlets and their bias... Tis the reason I watch the BBC and other world news more than I do my own country's news outlets. That was my original point. The World media part was about Blair. I don't really expect any media to provide extensive coverage about Tblisi. I don't attribute that to any major bias, just that the news business must cater to demand. There are probably far better examples of media bias than this.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
John Howard has been relatively overt in his support of the U.S.


Whats his incentive?

AUSFTA.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hell, Britney Spears getting a stupid haircut received coverage...

Strange you should mention that kind of thing...

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/03/14/nq070314.gif

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/03/15/nq070315.gif

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/03/16/nq070316.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2007/nq070317.gif



Of course it hasn't happened yet, and probably wont since this is an election year and things are going bad for him. However his support of the war hasn't wavered. In fact it was kind of funny when Cheney visited.

Prior to this Kevin Rudd and Labor had been talking about withdrawals and how they could happen, to which Howard responded how "abandoning" the US now could damage US/Australian relations... then a reporter asked Cheney during his visit and Cheney said if Australia withdrew their troops relations wouldn't be damaged. Which seemed to suggest he doesn't pay much attention to what Howard says in terms of Australian politics. Anywho Howard spun it as Cheney just being diplomatic.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is odd... When Britain stated they intended to withdraw 1600 troops the media was all over the story of how this was a sign that America was losing the war, losing it's allies, doom and gloom etc. etc. etc.

Now that Georgian President Mikheil Saakhashvili has proposed tripling the contingent of Georgian troops in Iraq, effectively bringing in 1700 (more than the British outgoing) not a single American and barely a western news media outlet cares?

Proves that the media has become a censoring, agenda ridden beast and I don't like censorship of any kind nor do I like being steered to anyone conclusion. Because all Americans would think that they were talking about the state