Is the latter intended to primarily document the use of the phrase? Is there a secondary use?
Could it be that the former links to the unfortunate and negative events of the occupation, while the latter envelopes the more positive and favorable events of the same occupation?; the former more focused on the activities of the occupation itself, while the latter focuses on the reshaping of Iraqi lives?
Should we adopt a vigilence against promoting the use of this phrase?
Do the existing external references describe the background and use of the phrase, or are they just using it, adopting it, or promoting it?
An encyclopedia (in this case the Disinfopeida) of all places including dictionaries, should take some care in associating the article names/titles with their contents; and should seek only quality and specifically relevant content, so as to illuminate rather than disorient, the reader.
Perhaps my disorientation is of my own making,
The following cited book by Braude is interesting .. especially if you first look at the publication date ... most likely pre-shock and awe .... and his credentials .... looks like a propaganda piece to me. However, can't say that with any real knowledge, since I have not seen the book. It just has that appearance ...
- Joseph Braude's The New Iraq: Rebuilding the Country for Its People, the Middle East, and the World was published in March 2003. Information about the latter can be found on Braude's web site newiraq.org.
M: "Could it be that the former links to the unfortunate and negative events of the occupation, while the latter envelopes the more positive and favorable events of the same occupation?; the former more focused on the activities of the occupation itself, while the latter focuses on the reshaping of Iraqi lives?"
Well, of course, any time you use terms like "war" vice "new", you are implying negative versus positive impressions. There did not/does not appear to have been a whole lot of forethought given to all the government and civil entities that were to exist following the fall of Saddam .. and how to achieve them .. with a realistic timetable .. hence, all the messiness.
If you note some of the early news articles identified with "new", you will find the recording industry and the world athletic groups .. and women's rights groups ... right on the ball ... but, as for simple things like a census, currency, national elections .... well, those (hence, music, sports, women's rights) were not run by the Shrubites, now are they?
... and I have to add, since this is my drumbeat .. follow the money .. what's the most important? .. other than power and money, that is.
The relevance to the SourceWatch is that "new Iraq army" should be interpreted as a new "Iraq army"; but is being foisted upon the public as a "New Iraq" army; and that this is strictly a political ploy the success of which can be measured by the evidence that not only has PBS and other respected media bought into it, but astonishly enough, so it seems have you. Sadly, accepting it is to perpetuate it. This whole episode should perhaps be a Case Study, but I'll leave that to the experts. Maynard 09:12 13 Dec 2003 (EST)
My earlier questions above are still without direct answer, as is the question of what SourceWatch will call the next Iraq after the U.S. turns over occupational authority? what comes after "new Iraq" ?? Iraq is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet, and NOW it's being called NEW. That is so preposterous.
You know that song that goes something like "you say po-tay-toes and I say poh-tah-toes" ... we're both talking about spuds.
Actually, I haven't bought into the "New Iraq" thing at all, M.
In fact, I thought that I was being pretty clear (hah!) in pointing out that the edges are so blurred that identifying old from new from post-war or anything in between really is just labeling ... a human invention which we must all use ... There is no post-war ... we're still deeply in combat, and more so everyday. There is no "new" or "New" Iraq .. nor can there be ...
The naming convention here was not my point ... you dragged me into that one (ok, I jumped into that one!). We HAVE TO HAVE labels, don't we?
My point .... up until I went looking for a "new Iraqi army", I had accepted the December media announcement that it was "new" ... i.e., recent.
The fact that it was allegedly in existence since July 15 .... but yet in December at thousands LESS than the proposed numbers for the end of the year .... caused me to pause ... how can that be?
The June article says that there will be thousands operating under Iraqi officers. The December articles says a few hundred operating under one U.S. Army unit and under U.S. officers (cited as one of the reasons why approximately half of them quit).
Now, with all the discussion about so many people in Iraq being unemployed, particulary former Iraqi soldiers (which, I have read, makes them ripe to join the "insurgency"), why are these "thousands" not back at work, doing what they know how to do -- soldier -- plus collecting U.S. dollars/new Iraqi dinar?
There's where I see the story. The matter of the label for what to call the "new" (ludicrous) Iraq is a separate one.
It's like referring to the Olympics of the current year as The Olympics as if there were no other. The attachment of a preceeding adjective (or article or other qualifier) into a noun phrase can be deliberate or not. In the foisting of "new Iraq" it was deliberate; in the subsequent general, perhaps careless, use, perpetuated deliberately or not by the media, it has not been deliberate, but has been pervasive to the delight of the perpetrators. How is it that "new" connotes a positive change rather than a negative change? or doesn't it? Does "the New Iraq" conjure up images of flowers blooming from the desert, or oil fires? symphonies or diseased and maimed children? -M
you have this page set so that anyone can edit it. I suggest you change this <--- Dork. Serious.