STARTED! Baghdad Being bombed - Post made by Mr. OverclockerBloke, War Fanatic

silverpaw · 5 Apr 2003 at 21:56

Originally posted by cousin_itt
there is an entertainment side to the humanitarian crisis?!?!?!

please elaborate.

i don't think it's possible to underestimate the crisis. when you hear that a hospital smells of sewerage, i don't get excited, thank you very much.

Well to begin with 'porn' is not another word for entertainment.

But yes, I think many anti-war people get very excited at the prospect of a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and the idea that it's the coalition's fault. I don't think they necessarily want people suffering but I do think they like a reason to point the finger and pontificate in the sancrimonious way many do.

Custor · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:01

Originally posted by Sleepy
And the pleasure you're getting from pointing out problems is, of course, out of the goodness of your heart. Afterall we all know how much you dislike the Iraqi people suffering under the iron boot of the coalition. Ohh for the good old days of the previous regime where all was sweetness and light unlike those evil gits of the British ArmyThats right if you're losing the argument insult the other side.

Thats right. An independent aid agency critises you so you dismiss it and cry "own agenda". Pleasure? I don't take any pleasure from people suffering. I also don't claim to be a white knight. You do.
If you're going to claim liberation - then liberate. We're slightly better than the evil ****** we hope to depose, C- for effort.

Silverpaw they're only Iraqis so get over it.

cousin_itt · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:01

porn in this sense refers to the relationship between the coverage and the reality.

sexual pornography -> loving human relationship

war pornography -> the actual implications of invading a country of 22 million people.

glossy, plastic, superfical and info bites of glorious computer graphics.
it's all dehumanising, it's all subtle agenda pumping.

Sleepy · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:01

Originally posted by cousin_itt
well sleepy, i guess being both against war and it's repercussions and hussain's awful regime is just a bit too complicated an idea for you to grasp.

i'm neither with you nor against you.

Annoying isn't it when someone calls you names rather than respond to your argument

Custor · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:06

Role VT. Can't show actual injuries or dead bodies thats obscene but watch the video. WOW, cool.

silverpaw · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:09

Originally posted by Custor
Thats right. An independent aid agency critises you so you dismiss it and cry "own agenda". Pleasure? I don't take any pleasure from people suffering. I also don't claim to be a white knight. You do.
If you're going to claim liberation - then liberate. We're slightly better than the evil ****** we hope to depose, C- for effort.

Ho, ho sancrimonious BS, you LOVE IT, you're also remarkably ignorant of the pro-war position. Many are interested and in awe of the technology but nobody is excited about killing people or causing destruction. I don't see you - as someone oh, so bothered about the humanitarian side of things - condemning Saddam Hussein for mining Umm Qsar and not just preventing any aid reaching the people but risking the lives of the aid workers and putting into serious jeopardy future aid shipments. Or turning the power out on Basra preventing water getting to people... The fact is the food for oil scheme has been manipulated by Saddam Hussein from the beginning and many, many people have died because of it, in war time this problem won't suddenly disappear. Only a fool would think it would.

cousin_itt · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:17

And the pleasure you're getting from pointing out problems is,

that's a bit presumptive, and insulting too.

i'm glad you can turn yourself off from the pain the iraqi people, because i cannot.
i can't believe you'd disregard some counter arguments in your own source just to make your point.
the british troops were not really supposed to be fighting any more. their role has changed, they do not have the man power to deal with the humanitarian crisis. i don't doubt for one moment their compassion, just the practical limitations.

when perusing the independent site, i didn't expect to see an article from a respected aid organisation telling me that aid was still not getting through to a hospital in the smallest, first liberated, port town of um qasr. and you think i derived pleasure from being able to draw it to people's attention.

there is a gulf between the compassionate and those that talk of inevitable collateral damage, it's huge and it's widening.

i dred to think what's happening south of baghdad, where aid workers cannot get in and the american troups have been shelling the cities.

Custor · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:21

Originally posted by silverpaw
Ho, ho sancrimonious BS, you LOVE IT, you're also remarkably ignorant of the pro-war position. Many are interested and in awe of the technology but nobody is excited about killing people or causing destruction. I don't see you - as someone oh, so bothered about the humanitarian side of things - condemning Saddam Hussein for mining Umm Qsar and not just preventing any aid reaching the people but risking the lives of the aid workers and putting into serious jeopardy future aid shipments. Or turning the power out on Basra preventing water getting to people... The fact is the food for oil scheme has been manipulated by Saddam Hussein from the beginning and many, many people have died because of it, in war time this problem won't suddenly disappear. Only a fool would think it would.

Was there a point to that post? Saddam mining the only port in S Iraq. Was that it?
Pumped out the rhetoric surpirse, but the point about a hospital.......? Sleepy says there lots of water and food and your saying theres not :confused:

Sleepy is heavily editing reports to prove his posts, you're just saying who gives a ****.

cousin_itt · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:21

Or turning the power out on Basra preventing water getting to people...

power in basra has been intermittent before the military action.

Sleepy · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:24

Originally posted by Custor
Thats right. An independent aid agency critises you so you dismiss it and cry "own agenda".

No I say there's always another side. And yes the people who work for NGO's do spin stuff to promote their agendas

Pleasure? I don't take any pleasure from people suffering. I also don't claim to be a white knight. You do.
If you're going to claim liberation - then liberate. We're slightly better than the evil ****** we hope to depose, C- for effort.

I dont claim to make the world I just live in it. It aint perfect but one day maybe...

Sleepy · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:27

Originally posted by cousin_itt
british troops were not really supposed to be fighting any more.

What war you watching?

their role has changed, they do not have the man power to deal with the humanitarian crisis. i don't doubt for one moment their compassion, just the practical limitations.

There's 26000 British troops in that area. I some doubt that any humanitarian organisation has 26000 employees world wide.

cousin_itt · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:28

if the british people were told of the true extent of the potential humanitarian crisis, rather than the glossy version, perhaps we would have prepared better.
the version that relied on such stupid intelligence that the people would uprise. that the armies would lay down their arms and bow down at the mighty anglo-american forces.

the war was rushed, the plan was based on falsities, the civilians now suffer as a result.

the seiges continue, yet blair's getting a medal.

great.

silverpaw · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:29

Sleepy, I'd just leave it tbh, no point.

Sleepy · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:31

Originally posted by Custor
Sleepy is heavily editing reports to prove his posts

Bull

I quoted paragraphs from an article to which I also gave a link. So to imply that I was being dishonest in my post is insulting.

Orifice · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:35

Originally posted by cousin_itt
the seiges continue, yet blair's getting a medal.

So you'd rather coalition forces pull out and allow Saddam to carry on with his torture and gas attacks on his own people. Sure that will help the iraqi people your harping on about.

Custor · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:37

When was the last gas attack on the Kurd rebels?

Sleepy I've indicated all along that you quoting those sentences was highly biased and not representative of the article itself IMHO. Thats why I also posted sentneces that you had missed but which didn't support your argument.

Sleepy · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:39

Originally posted by cousin_itt
if the british people were told of the true extent of the potential humanitarian crisis,

I've not seen any footage of dead or dieing civilains in Basra or the AL Fal peninsula. so just how bad is this crisis?

rather than the glossy version, perhaps we would have prepared better. the version that relied on such stupid intelligence that the people would uprise. that the armies would lay down their arms and bow down at the mighty anglo-american forces.

Thats what the US Intel agencies reported.

the war was rushed, the plan was based on falsities,

Where's your evidence for this viewpoint? You haven't got any cos its based on a delusion.

dirtydog · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:41

Originally posted by Custor
When was the last gas attack on the Kurd rebels?

1988 I believe. When they got caught in the crossfire between Iran and Iraq's armies who were attacking each other with poison gas. That's how the Kurds in Halabja died.

silverpaw · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:41

Originally posted by Custor
When was the last gas attack on the Kurd rebels?

Who, knows, they've maybe been too busy executing people :rolleyes:

Custor · 5 Apr 2003 at 22:41

So 15 years ago. Not much of a continuation of policy then.
Executing people 1985 previous post. USA has death penalty too. Go look it up. Lethal injection obviously more humane than being shot. Us only execute criminals while Iraq obviously execute anyone for no reason cos they're all evil.