It pains me to have to create a whole new thread for this but some people's irrational censorship of communication left me no alternative. I have always maintained, with evidence from a variety of sources, that the Iraqification of the US-trained Iraqi army is not by any standard a certified success and that the US-trained army is nowhere near or is anywhere close to being successful. My typically standard rational analysis of the situation, drawn on different sources, drew the usual and typical heckling and insults from the shadowy groups of chickenhawks out there. Again I say I am not taken any personal offence at any time as of yet, and will simply explain and teach it to you again. People who take propaganda feel-good sources and use them as a 'clear and reliable' sources are not to be taken seriously as it shows a serious default in mindpower and credibility. Again I ask, what would someone say if I used Pravda as an official and true source, or the Pyongyang Times? Or the Soviet Army's official newswire. The list could go on and on. Anyways the reason for this thread:
Only the most foolhardy socially blind individuals would miss the real fact stated in this article. So, accordingly, barely anyone will make a stir about it.
About half of Iraq's new police units are still in training and cannot conduct operations.
Only "a small number" of Iraqi security forces are capable of fighting the insurgency without American assistance
I'd bet a small number would equal less than one thousand out of about 180,000 or so. I can only assume the US ARMY TIMES NEWSWIRE deliberately ignored that fact before presstime. But people, especially the lower minded ones, can be forgiven for making wrong, terribly wrong assumptions. It's still a few steps away from deliberate lying and so forth. But one thing they can't really be forgiven for, and that's the deliberate spread of biased, obviously biased, news and claim it to be all-factual. That is also evidence of the weaker minds, for how can anyone, like some shadowy fools, accept that it's ok to use the US ARMY NEWS as a fair source, and then on the other hand say that the SOVIET ARMY NEWS is propaganda and full of lies. How idiotic is that? Very.
Now here is where the Shadowy types of people get bitten on the ass..."The assessment, which has not been publicly released, is the most precise analysis of the Iraqis' readiness levels that the military has provided...". Well if anyone asks the Shadowy cheerleaders, the truth and facts are already known and in the public news domain. You can find it at the official US ARMY (Soviet Pravda) NEWSWIRE. We need to know how some people got such good information when the truth is publicly withheld. It could be a serious breach of national security, but only if their words are the truth.
Republicans and Democrats directed him to provide an unclassified accounting of the Iraqis' abilities to allow a fuller public debate. The military had already provided classified assessments to lawmakers
Classified analysis and critique of the Iraqi forces assessment. Classified a.k.a. damage control and obscuring of facts.
American commanders have until now resisted quantifying the abilities of Iraqi units, especially their shortcomings, to avoid giving the insurgents any advantage
Until now. So what does that mean in relation to what the army news wire was saying up until this time now? Keep in mind those US ARMY stories are the same ones Shadow was using as evidence of the new successful Iraq. In short, the military said that their reporting of bad news about the new Iraqi Army's state of readiness would help the freedom fighting Iraqi insurgents. And that makes total and perfect sense. So it's a kind of mystery why Shadow follows such silly propagandic US ARMY NEWS articles as evidence and proof, and so easily too. Truth be told, that's a sign of complete mental weakness and a clear and deliberate urge to keep some fantastic idea in his mind, about what the US is supposed to mean and stand for and all that hype. Anyone who uses such publications as proof are on the short end of the gene pool. In light of this, it's kind of obvious why he feels compelled to censor and condemn rational and logical truisms. What reasons do people have to support a banning of free thought? The rational and those who can articulate themselves can easily argue against someone's point if they have anything to stand on. such as real evidence. What motivates the ones who can't argue against someone's point? Well, the answer is the fear of losing or looking like an idiot. Besides, who would want to spread such insane and illogical foolish lies about a myriad of issues for so long, even some scientific ones, and then suddenly turn into a rational person and make some sound honest sense? It's like asking someone to turn their entire belief system upside down, hence dorks who still believe or still won't respond to, the fact that the 911 Building 7 collapse was a controlled demolition.
"It's not for us to tell the other side, the enemy, the terrorists, that this Iraqi unit has this capability, and that Iraqi unit has this capability," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The idea of discussing weaknesses, if you will, strengths and weaknesses of 'this unit has a poor chain of command,' or 'these forces are not as effective because their morale's down' - I mean, that would be mindless to put that kind of information out."
Please read that again. Mr. Rumsfeld said: "I mean, that would be mindless to put that kind of information out?".
So then what kind of information DID they put out? Well, again, the answer is easy. The shit Shadow references as his valid source for real news, that's what.
So here you have the Secretary of Defence saying that the truth about Iraq's pathetic ragtag unfinished immobile and insufficient army is something they "wouldn't want to put out" there. So the truth must be and is concealed. How? By having the official army newswire make up success stories to sucker in the drone-likes of Shadow and the other supporters of illegal atrocities,while in conjunction with a willing and obedient media. Every word: true.
This nonsense could be avoided had people provide other sources ALONG with not allowing oneself to be a censor in league with totalitarianism and the repression of free speech and the sharing of beliefs and ideas.