War children can't live by leaflets alone

[Crimson and Clover]

An 18-month-old screams in agony as adult hands try to hold her. Big
white bandages can't hide the red weals and blackened skin that cover
her tiny body. She will scream and scream like this until she dies,
which, God willing, will be soon.

No amount of money can reconstruct this small being when she is gone.
Nearby is a five-year-old who will never walk again, a 10-year-old
with half his stomach torn away.

In another part of the city, broken dolls spill from a ruined
tenement. It looks as if a giant hand has ripped the building apart
and flung the pieces angrily to the ground, killing the inhabitants.

Sometimes children do have to be sacrificed to the arrogance of great
men.

But each one of these suffering children has a host of aunties,
uncles, neighbours who carry the burden of not having been able to
protect them from the intransigence of Saddam, the wrath of the
Emperor of Washington, and the muddleheads of Westminster's gunboat
liberals.

No wonder the people of Baghdad spill angrily out of their homes at
news that a pilot is down in the river. No wonder they gather up guns
and sticks and stones and mount a hunt that goes on half the night.

These people have blood reasons to hate the Allies now, and it's
going to take a damn sight more than a planeload of leaflets to
change their minds.

At home, the military pundits are out in force, their pontifications
rolling on relentlessly like a tank advance backed by overwhelming
force. "It's a naive

little missile, but I think you'll admire its pretension," they
almost say. The 24-hour news channels are devoted largely to a
celebration of military hardware, faintly, sickeningly reminiscent of a martial Changing Rooms, smashing up Iraq in order to give it a new
look.

There seems to be a pact not to affect morale by showing real people
in Iraq or telling their stories, so it's all cold and clinical. The
reporters are mostly "embedded" with the army, parroting MoD press
releases with dangly earrings on Sky News, fresh-faced on News 24.

"If British troops committed an atrocity and you knew it would affect
morale, would you report it?" the panel ask on BBC Radio 4's The
Moral Maze as if the nationalist "we" of Bonkers Britain were of
greater importance than our common humanity.

Behind the carefully neutral language, however, lurks the burning,
shameful truth. In Basra are the first indications of what is to
happen. A war of attrition is going to be necessary, say the pundits.
The media will need to be more strictly controlled. The western
public is not ready to see pictures of what is happening in Basra. We
are not ready to accept the level of "collateral damage" that will be
necessary.

The British army has already started to bomb the city. There have
been "scores" of civilian casualties. Who knows how many? Who knows
how many Iraqi soldiers have died?

Where are the eyewitness reports from Basra? A large proportion of
the city has been without clean water for three days. Its population
is drawing sewage-infected water from the river in desperation. But
the children were already weak, a quarter malnourished. An outbreak
of cholera, dysentery, or even diarrhoea - which is already
responsible for three quarters of infant deaths in the town - would
be devastating.

When Clare Short changed her mind and stayed in her job, which was,
in some ways, a brave thing to do, she defended her action by saying
that she wanted to co-ordinate the humanitarian effort. She must show
that that is happening or become a cypher. Another £30m is of no
value if it cannot reach the people who desperately need help.

Part of the reason for going to war was supposed to be to improve the
lot of the Iraqis. But now we are told the Allies simply can't get
the humanitarian relief in. Too bad.

But if a tenth of the effort that has been put in to bombing had been
put into aid, Iraqis would be drowning in New York cheesecake and
Savile Row shirts.

Bush is asking Congress for $75bn, a half a billion of that earmarked
for humanitarian relief. A US marine was pictured giving a drink of
water to an Iraqi PoW. But the picture didn't show that the man's
hands were tied behind his back. It's a metaphor.

The tanks will roll into Baghdad, that's certain. The Allies are
desperate to get there. But when they do, what do they think will
happen? It will not be the end, but the beginning.

Henceforth no American will be safe there. They will come from the
shadows, armed with bullets and knives, and sticks and stones, and
their bare hands to take revenge for the innocent blood that has been
spilled.
Not a single refugee has arrived in Jordan in the past few days -
they are all going the other way. Ironically, this ill-thought out
campaign has had exactly the opposite effect from the intended one.
For "shock and awe" read "rage and contempt".

You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.

[MonarC]

what an article. Did u write that?

[Crimson and Clover]

Originally posted by MonarC
Did u write that?

no. i got it in an email, it didnt say who wrote it

[laceyinthesky]

That's so sad. You know that if there were American children hurt like that it would be "the saddest thing since 9-11." I'm not denying that it is very saddening, but knowing how selfish our country is, or should I say how some people in our country are, the media will somehow glorify the American children's lives, as if their lives are more important than Iraqi children.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
but knowing how selfish our country is,

What planet are you living on?
Name another country that gives out more in aid than the United States?
List that country right here: -_______________________ Not only does the U.S. give out more than aid than any other country on earth, but I think we give out more aid than all the other countries combined.
I just heard that the U.S. will now spend a couple of BILLION DOLLARS in aid for Iraq. Again, can you name another country that would spend this very large amount of money on a country they are at war at.
Now, tell me exactly how the United States is selfish. Is it because only 16 MILLION Americans served in WWII, fighting a war in foreign countries? Is it because the troops now in Iraq risking their LIFE to liberate that country? The United States "selfish." That has to be the most inaccurate post of all time!!! What is selfish about trying to prevent another attack on one of our cities? In preserving our nation?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Crimson_and_Clover


no. i got it in an email, it didnt say who wrote it

Sorry to be a buttinski, but...it's VERY important that you clarify that someone other than yourself was the writer of your posts! Even if you have no name to post or choose not to post the name of the source you should post that it is from someone other than you.

[Crimson and Clover]

Originally posted by Kitt
Sorry to be a buttinski, but...it's VERY important that you clarify that someone other than yourself was the writer of your posts! Even if you have no name to post or choose not to post the name of the source you should post that it is from someone other than you.

thank you but i did not realize that it didnt have the author until she asked that question

[laceyinthesky]

Originally posted by Fleet

What planet are you living on?
Name another country that gives out more in aid than the United States?
List that country right here: -_______________________ Not only does the U.S. give out more than aid than any other country on earth, but I think we give out more aid than all the other countries combined.
I just heard that the U.S. will now spend a couple of BILLION DOLLARS in aid for Iraq. Again, can you name another country that would spend this very large amount of money on a country they are at war at.
Now, tell me exactly how the United States is selfish. Is it because only 16 MILLION Americans served in WWII, fighting a war in foreign countries? Is it because the troops now in Iraq risking their LIFE to liberate that country? The United States "selfish." That has to be the most inaccurate post of all time!!! What is selfish about trying to prevent another attack on one of our cities? In preserving our nation?

Whoa, Sherlock, calm down! I know our country has done that, did I say we haven't? Did I even say anything about that? No. Stop jumping to conclusions like you've done time and time again.

Go back and read my original post. This is what I said: "the media will somehow glorify the American children's lives, as if their lives are more important than Iraqi children." When self-righteous Americans think that, that makes them selfish. Go ahead and try to prove that wrong, Mr. Holmes.

[Fleet]

Your quote, to the word, was... "but knowing how selfish our country is..." Which I still say is a ridiculous statement.
I doubt the media will "glorify" American children's lives. Actually, it's true... American children's lives ARE more important than Iraqi children. Look at it this way... if this current war was not fought, and the al Qaeda (which has training camps in Northern Iraq), car-bombs a U.S. city in which maybe 100 U.S. children die. But, if this did not happen because we destroy the would-be planners in Iraq (unfortunately, at the loss of 50-100- or whatever the number- Iraqi children). The question is this- would it be worth it to save the American lives? Definitely YES. Saying American lives are worth saving over Iraqi lives is not selfish in the least- it's self-preservation.
If you really think Iraqi children's lives are just as important as American children's, would you send 10 kids (kids you know personally) to Iraq (in exchange for 10 Iraqi kids brought to America) in areas likely to be bombed, and say it doesn't matter if they're killed, because they're no more important than Iraqi kids! Or, any 10 American kids.
In WWII, England, along with the U.S., bombed German cities in order to preserve their freedom and lives, even though many German kids were killed. Should England have stopped the bombing because "English kids are no more important than German kids?"

[Ian]

We are all humans. We are all of the same species, therefore, not one human is more important than another. Someone might be more important TO YOU, but fundamentally one countries people is not more important than anothers.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by JOHN LENNON LIVES
We are all humans. We are all of the same species, therefore, not one human is more important than another. Someone might be more important TO YOU, but fundamentally one countries people is not more important than anothers.

Human compassion 101. I'd feel ashamed to see it anyother way.

[C Doody]

I Agree that a life is a life. I Totally agree on that Point. I Dont favor people because of where their from.

But think of it this way. If you lived in a country with a Man like Saddam in charge, Killing people whenever he feels like it...Would you rather die knowing your country is going to be free, Or live in the agony and fear of having An Evil Man As your Leader?

[laceyinthesky]

Originally posted by Fleet
Your quote, to the word, was... "but knowing how selfish our country is..." Which I still say is a ridiculous statement.
I doubt the media will "glorify" American children's lives. Actually, it's true... American children's lives ARE more important than Iraqi children. Look at it this way... if this current war was not fought, and the al Qaeda (which has training camps in Northern Iraq), car-bombs a U.S. city in which maybe 100 U.S. children die. But, if this did not happen because we destroy the would-be planners in Iraq (unfortunately, at the loss of 50-100- or whatever the number- Iraqi children). The question is this- would it be worth it to save the American lives? Definitely YES. Saying American lives are worth saving over Iraqi lives is not selfish in the least- it's self-preservation.
If you really think Iraqi children's lives are just as important as American children's, would you send 10 kids (kids you know personally) to Iraq (in exchange for 10 Iraqi kids brought to America) in areas likely to be bombed, and say it doesn't matter if they're killed, because they're no more important than Iraqi kids! Or, any 10 American kids.
In WWII, England, along with the U.S., bombed German cities in order to preserve their freedom and lives, even though many German kids were killed. Should England have stopped the bombing because "English kids are no more important than German kids?"

Thankyou for proving my point. You'd go into my self-righteous Americans group.

And to the point you were trying to prove, I wouldn't send any 10 kids over there, whether they were American or not. I never said it was alright to kill any kids, Iraqi or American.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
And to the point you were trying to prove, I wouldn't send any 10 kids over there, whether they were American or not. I never said it was alright to kill any kids, Iraqi or American.

Let me try again. Let's say you have an 8-year-old son. He is playing with another kid (who is an American orginally from the middle east) on a playground. You see a car, out of control, heading toward the playground. You are close enough to help, but you know you only can save one kid. Who do you save- your own son or the other kid? Of course, we all know the answer- no need for your response.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
Thankyou for proving my point. You'd go into my self-righteous Americans group.

You did not answer my question. Should England and the U.S. have stopped bombing Germany during WWII because children were getting killed? If you say no, I guess you are self-righteous, too.
Also, I guess about 75% of American people (according to your warped thinking) are self-righteous, because that's how many support this war.