Hotel shelling in Iraq

[sjt19]

With all due respect,

Originally posted by gyroscope
There is always a sense of loss when a family member dies, but to assume that it is an act of insensitivity (to the family) is insulting to those who die for what they think is important despite the cost to them andf their families.

If you re read what i posted you notice i said that i respected their determination. I was not at any stage insulting the journalists who died. I stated that the "The chase for truth, or sensational stories, or money, or whatever drove these journalists was obviously to them more important than their families". This is a fair judgement, as they died for what they believed to be the right thing to do, they were out reporting in the most dangerous place they could have been, not at home with their families. I did not say that the reporters were insensitive at all, i merely wondered what the view of the families affected is. Was the need for truth worth losing a loved one for, and i suspect that maybe it wasnt.

 

[duffistuta]

>>>Was the need for truth worth losing a loved one for, and i suspect that maybe it wasnt.

Yet you support the war? So the soldiers, risking their lives for weapons of mass destruction that may or may not exist, are somehow pursuing a worthier cause than the pursuit of the truth?

 

[sjt19]

Originally posted by duffistuta
>>>Was the need for truth worth losing a loved one for, and i suspect that maybe it wasnt.

Yet you support the war? So the soldiers, risking their lives for weapons of mass destruction that may or may not exist, are somehow pursuing a worthier cause than the pursuit of the truth?

thats not what i am saying. Relieving Iraq of the tyranny of Saddam's regime is not the same as reporting on aspects of the war. I am in support of the war, but i think that the loss of life of the Journalists was unnessassary and avoidable. i do however applaud their bravey, dedication and determination.

 

[duffistuta]

>>>Relieving Iraq of the tyranny of Saddam's regime is not the same as reporting on aspects of the war.

But that, as Bush, Blair et al have been saying all along, is NOT the stated aim of the conflict, finding weapons of mass destruction is. The liberation of the Iraqi people is, whether you are Pro or anti-war, a happy coincedence. IF Saddam has these weapons and had given them up, his regime would be under no threat whatsoever.

The soldiers went in for one reason and one reason alone, so the question stands: is the pursuit of weapons that may or may not exist more important than the pursuit of the truth?

 

[sjt19]

Originally posted by duffistuta
But that, as Bush, Blair et al have been saying all along, is NOT the stated aim of the conflict, finding weapons of mass destruction is. The liberation of the Iraqi people is, whether you are Pro or anti-war, a happy coincedence

I agree that it was in the begginning, however, i have been watching the news , and especially today and last night, every time Blair or Bush has been on the TV they continually state that they are 'liberating Iraq'. Weapons of Mass destruction have not been in the speil for a few days now, maybe they are afraid they wont find any and have shifted the focus of the war. I cannot count the number of times that military commanders and leaders have referred to their troops as liberators.

Originally posted by duffistuta
The soldiers went in for one reason and one reason alone, so the question stands: is the pursuit of weapons that may or may not exist more important than the pursuit of the truth?

But Duffy, Are these two not the same thing?

 

[duffistuta]

I agree that it was in the begginning, however, i have been watching the news , and especially today and last night, every time Blair or Bush has been on the TV they continually state that they are 'liberating Iraq'. Weapons of Mass destruction have not been in the speil for a few days now, maybe they are afraid they wont find any and have shifted the focus of the war.

>>>So 'we went to war for one reason, our justification may be up the swanney, so we'll change it' And you think that's a good thing?????

But Duffy, Are these two not the same thing?

>>>Absolutely not, even if they find weapons.

I guess you're looking forward to the liberation of Palestine, Tibet, Syria, Korea and umpteen other countries soon then?

 

[Buddha 3]

How is ridding a country of weapons of mass destruction (which were absolutely, guaranteed, 100% certain to be there, so no need to find the truth) the same as finding the truth?

 

[sjt19]

Originally posted by duffistuta
So 'we went to war for one reason, our justification may be up the swanney, so we'll change it' And you think that's a good thing?????

No of course not, it is deplorable, but unfortunately it is the way that people in control of the USA and Uk tend to think, and change their minds to suit the prevailing situation.

Originally posted by duffistuta
I guess you're looking forward to the liberation of Palestine, Tibet, Syria, Korea and umpteen other countries soon then?

No not at all, i happen to believe that what is happening with regard to Iraq should never have been allowed to get this far, i think that it was a gross mistake of the coalition forces to leave Saddam in power following the last conflict all those years ago. What they are doing now is in my opinion over 10 years to late, and has cost the lives of millions of innocent Iraqi people. I support the troops in Iraq because what they need to feel is the support of the nation so that they can do their jobs quickl;y and return home safely. I would dread to think what kind of reception that they would get if the same thing that followed the Vietnam war in the states awas to occur here. The military personnell who put their lives on the line should have the support of the nation they represent, not fear a public backlash when they return by those who disagreed with why they were there in the first place.

 

[duffistuta]

The military personnel do, I think - it's the politicians who are lying cocksuckers.

Much as I disagree with Blair at the moment, I do believe he's doing what he's doing for moral reasons, whilst Bush and Chirac have both taken up their respective positions for reasons of political and economic self-interest.

 

[sjt19]

It will be interesting to see what happens to Iraq following the conclusion of this conflict.

At a press conference yesterday, Blair and Bush had different answers to who would control the country after the war. Blair stated that the pressing issue was that the Iraqis governed themselves through elections and governmental procedure, (which he would help them in setting up), while Bush merely stated vaguely that the UN 'may' have a role in post war Iraq. I think that the reporter said there was widespread disagreement in the US over who would control Iraq after the war. With the oil that they have there who knows what will happen........

sam