quote:

---

Originally posted by MissMel:
Although, I must say that MTV had an interesting perspective, dealing with and discussing the military personel in the gulf.

---

Yeah, I was impressed by that. My roommate turned it on (she wanted to watch Sorority Girls or whatever that show is) and I was pleasantly surprised. I never watch MTV. It was a bit overly dramatic, but that's really to be expected from any televsision news. I started to tune out when they started taking audience calls, but I did enjoy the piece about our soldiers. B and I were both crying - they're so young! Younger than me, even, and a lot of them are married with kids already.

i appologize that i can't seem to stop posting on this topic...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaimes78:
i would like to know about being a humanitarian aid volunteer. i mean, are those people who are sent to war areas to help all doctors? are they usually from a certain group like Red Cross? just curious...

---

The sister of a friend of a friend is a nurse for "Médecins sans frontières" (Doctors without borders? I don't know the translation). Last time I met her, she was coming back from Afghanistan and about to go to Palestine.

We talked a lot about how she had started doing that (because my lil' sister is considering going into humanitarian aid) and she suggested doing some short term assignments first, so see if you're able to stand the poverty and hard working conditions. Lots of government agencies organize three-month work camps in South America or elsewhere for youths. Those are half-vacations/half-work, so it's not really aid, but it tells you if you're able to do that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kena:
The sister of a friend of a friend is a nurse for "Médecins sans frontières" (Doctors without borders? I don't know the translation).

---

That's it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
I wonder if they feel liberated yet.

---

The people in Safwan who had to beg US troops for food because they had none of their own probably do. The Iraqi woman who clasped the knees of a female soldier and thanked her probably does. The people around Umm Qasr who were so hungry they rushed in to pick the dates off the palm trees when the walls came down probably do.

Please don't misunderstand me--I hate that civilians will die in this conflict. Hopefully it will be far less than the number Saddam Hussein tends to kill in any given year on his own.

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.asp

If you click on the thumbnails, you'll get the whole poster. A lot of them have text that doesn't show up on this initial index page.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaimes78:
i'm kind of glad they aren't showing those videos here. i don't think it's right for anyone to show them, anywhere. i can't even imagine being a family member of a soldier and being afraid every time i turn on the tv to get a news update that i might see my brother or sister, or son or daughter or whomever, in a POW tape or in any video showing them being hurt.

[This message has been edited by Jaimes78 (edited 03-24-2003).]

---

it's weird how much media coverage of the war has changed the way wars are. just out of curiousity the paper here are reporting that american news isn't showing iraqi civillian casualties

"Virtually uncovered in the media are Iraqi civilian casualties. While all the networks ran the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad, scant coverage was given to the wounded. This was despite public statements from the International Red Cross giving figures for the injured.

And while Al-Jazeera has cameras in Basra where Iraqi casualties are more apparent, little of this footage is seen in the US.

The US networks run acres of material from "embedded" correspondents on ships as they fire off Tomahawks, from air bases waving off fighters, and from infantry forces firing off artillery. But there is little commentary or discussion of what happens when this ordinance hits. "

"But this emphasis on war game imagery is not serving Americans well. Outside the US, pictures from Al-Jazeera of injured Iraqis, burnt children and crying mothers are being transmitted throughout the Arab world and much of Europe.

If the conflict intensifies, this will increase. And Americans will have little idea why the war is instilling such antagonism in the Arab world."

From http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354546196.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
Is that true?

---

I can't speak about TV coverage because I have no TV signal reception and got rid of my cable a couple of months ago. However, Reuters and AP articles--as well as graphic pictures of both Iraqi and US casualties--are showing up on Yahoo! News. Additionally, my local news radio station has been reporting the Red Cross figures and talking about some of the more disturbing images from Al Jazeera. The Seattle Times is also discussing the civilian impact, but has not published the truly gruesome photos that I've seen on Yahoo! News.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
[i]The US networks run acres of material from "embedded" correspondents on ships as they fire off Tomahawks, from air bases waving off fighters, and from infantry forces firing off artillery. But there is little commentary or discussion of what happens when this ordinance hits.

---

The TV coverage sucks from what little I've seen of it, but admittedly I've been avoiding it because I think they generally do a poor job and because I haven't had the nerves for this the past few days. I've been reading the NY Times though this afternoon and there is a lot of mention of civilian deaths and injuries... much of it is still unsubstantiated according to them, no numbers yet due to chaos, but definately no pictures. I wonder if people aren't more sensitive to seeing that kind of imagery after 9/11 and all the flack that the media received for showing people jumping and what not. I know I don't really have the stomach for it. That said though, while I'll agree with Epi that many Americans do prefer a "clean" and quick war, I certainly don't expect it to be that. I think it would make me distrust the news sources if that were the message they were projecting.

Edited due to serious typing problems today.

Without getting in to an argument about whether or not this is a "just" war--
I feel it necessary to point out that I believe this is a technically legal war and the US does, in fact, have international support. 30 nations signed up to support the war, and even Poland admitted today that it has actual combat troops on the ground in Iraq. Even though I personally would have liked to see UN support, I think 30 nations count as "international" support.

Additionally, Iraq has been in almost constant contravention of the treaty which ended the original Gulf War. Every time they lit up a plane in the no-fly zone they broke the treaty. They've even actively fired on those planes, which is an outright act of war.

On top of that, Saddam Hussein began calling the treaty a "ceasefire agreement" almost immediately upon signing it so he could pretend he didn't lose and that his army never surrendered. If that's the case, then we've been at war for twelve years--we just haven't been actively fighting.

I'll agree with a lot of criticism about this war, but calling it "illegal" just seems farfetched to me. Immoral? Strong maybe. Dangerous (in terms of international relations and possible snowball effects)? Definitely. Shortsighted? Sure. Illegal? No, not technically.

I think that what's going on now is the direct result of more than a decade of botched foreign policy and complacency on the part of the US and major European nations. They should have done the right thing 12 years ago.

What I'm afraid of now is that our administration is going to turn Iraq into a Disney World for Big Corporations. Halliburton (Dick Cheney's former employer) is already licking its chops hoping for the big government contracts.

I'm also afraid that despite the rhetoric of our leaders, the humanitarian aid that's been promised will fall dreadfully flat of what is needed. I think now that this beast has started, it would be more fruitful for the peace protesters to start ramping up their efforts to exercise unblinking vigilance during the "rebuilding" of Iraq.

Russia's asking that it be investigated by the Court. I support that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ragazzina:
So let's not debate it.

---

OK, I guess I should have asked this a lot earlier--is this supposed to be a thread where people just write about how much they hate the war or is it a forum for discussion of war-related topics? If it's not supposed to be a forum for discussion, tell me now and I'll go back and delete everything I've posted. If it is a forum for discussion, then this is exactly the type of thing we should be debating.

Edited to add:

I just answered my own question. When BG started this thread she wrote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BionicGirl:
I think specifics about the situation should be welcome in this discussion as well as general feelings and ideas.

---

In that light, my opinions may be unpopular but they are at least germane to the thread. I believe suggestions that we not discuss these major aspects of the war--legality and what constitutes "international support"--undermine the point of the thread. "Wait for the ICJ to rule on it" doesn't really work for me either, because if we waited for "authorities" to pass judgment on everything we discussed we'd never have anything to talk about.

Edited to say/clarify - legality and morality are different and morality is subjective.

Even if it's technically in the uh, mission statement of this thread, maybe stuff not about fears should go in a new thread? (Or in the "Just war?" thread, maybe? Although like you say, international law isn't necessarily the same issue.) Then you can chat about it without being mixed in with the other stuff in this thread. Anyway. My 2 cents.

====

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
International law is pretty technical, I doubt we know enough to be able to debate 3it - is anyone in Digs well versed in international law?

---

Just for clarification, Becca, are you suggesting that no one mention the legal status of the war at all? I will immediately agree not to claim it is a legal war as long as no one else claims it is an illegal war. But if it is ok for people to state their feelings that this is an illegal war, then it should be just as ok for me to state my feelings that it is not an illegal war.

Please don't think I am being disrespectful--but I really do want to establish the parameters of discussion. My understanding was that this thread was open to the discussion of all points regarding the war, and we have never to my knowledge closed down a respectful debate simply because no one had a degree on the subject matter.

As far as international law goes, I know jack sh*t about it. I've heard many, many people say it's an illegal war, but not many of those people can (or do) say why. Though there may not be any experts here, there are obviously people that know more about it than I do, and I've enjoyed reading their various opinions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
Edited to say/clarify - legality and morality are different and morality is subjective.

---

I agree with you 100% on that point, and I am still not sure this will go down in the history books as a "moral" war. The proof of that will be in the aftermath and rebuilding of Iraq. If the US government does what it says it wants to do--help Iraq become a free, prosperous, democracy--then it will be a moral victory of sorts as long as they can avoid killing thousands of civilians in the process.

I'm not sure *I* consider it moral. If the goal were solely to liberate the Iraqi people and make ammends for the fact that we helped this animal cement his power, I would feel better about it. As it is, I have a sinking gut feeling that while the result may have legitimate humanitarian benefits, the impetus on the part of the US government was not goodwill. As I said, the end result will decide how this gets added to the annals.

I think the blank check those wimps in congress gave GWB sets a dangerous precedent. One of the reasons I voted for a rabid liberal last November was that he at least stuck by his guns and voted against the authorization of force without a declaration of war when most democrats caved in.