GameBanshee Forums

Very quick answer since I'm at work:

@Lazarus: Chill out, now it sounds like you are getting personal in this debate....anyway, the picture I mentioned was published in the web version of Sweden's largest newspaper.

@Chanak: According to the Red Cross it is the US/UK bombing that has damaged pump stations, that has led to the water and electricity shut off in Basra as well as Umm Quasr. I have not seen any confirmed reports regarding the electricity in Basra, only that it was the US/UK attacks in Umm Quasr that cut off the electricity there. Hopefully the ship with aid is arriving to Umm Quasr later today.

The ship is called Sir Galahad

14 civilians dead when an allied robot hits a house in Bagdad.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Very quick answer since I'm at work:

@Lazarus: Chill out, now it sounds like you are getting personal in this debate....anyway, the picture I mentioned was published in the web version of Sweden's largest newspaper...

But all I did was agree with you. The images we are all seeing right now can be given any kind of spin, depending on who is showing it, and the prejudices of who is viewing it. All I'm asking is that you be as skeptical of what you are seeing as you are asking us to be.

]Originally posted by Lazarus
But all I did was agree with you. The images we are all seeing right now can be given any kind of spin, depending on who is showing it, and the prejudices of who is viewing it. All I'm asking is that you be as skeptical of what you are seeing as you are asking us to be.

Oh, sorry then, I misunderstood this comment: '

Originally posted by Lazarus
Indeed. And it seems you are just as liable to fall prey to that propaganda as we Americans.

as meaning you thought I was only pointing out that Americans were victims of propaganda, and not everybody. What I meant in my first post was of course that all material, from Western or Arabic sources, choosen by different newspapers and broadcasters, are biased atm.

Oh well, I shouldn't be posting at all from work, I have far too much to do to address the questions properly, so I try to post more later tonight instead.

@CE: I'm at work too.

Anyway, I think we agree, even if we look at the thing from different angles. Take this recent killing of 15 civilians by a US missle, for example. Now you say that it was a US missle, and it killed 15 civilians. This information, as far as I have been able to track (as of 08:35 central time, US) is from Iraqi cources. Per CNN:

"Iraqi officials said U.S. munitions killed 15 Iraqi civilians Wednesday at a popular market in Baghdad. Following the report from the Iraqi Information Ministry, photographers from international news agencies confirmed seeing an undetermined number of dead and injured people, apparently civilians, and burned vehicles in the capital city. No further information was available."

EDIT: Or, since you seem to prefer the BBC: "Fourteen civilians died and another 30 were injured in Baghdad when a shopping area was hit during an air raid by US-led coalition forces, the Iraqi authorities say.
The BBC's Andrew Gilligan, at the scene in the northern Shaab district of the city, says it appears that two missiles hit a busy parade of shops, several hundred metres from any military buildings.

An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims.

They shouted: "Down with Bush" and "Long live Saddam". " ENDEDIT.

Now, I would guess that it probably was an American missle that killed those people. But I certainly won't take the Iraqi's word for it, and they are the only ones able to give any information at this time. So, I think that your saying it was and American missle is a bit pre-mature. Again, all I ask is that everyone be skeptical. The US has been perfectly willing to admit when they kill the wrong people (as evidenced by admitting the killing of the Syrians, and also of their own troops in "friendly fire" incidents). So, wait to see what they have to say, before jumping to conclusions.

Isn't that reasonable?

Originally posted by Lazarus
...all I ask is that everyone be skeptical. The US has been perfectly willing to admit when they kill the wrong people (as evidenced by admitting the killing of the Syrians, and also of their own troops in "friendly fire" incidents). So, wait to see what they have to say, before jumping to conclusions.

Isn't that reasonable?

Very reasonable indeed. I've been thinking about this issue a lot over the past week. Each side has its own agenda and its own spin to put on things for propaganda purposes. I don't trust ANY press, to be honest. But I think that automatically believing bad things about the coalition forces just because one disagrees with the war is a mistake -- just as it would also be a mistake to automatically believe good things about the coalition forces because one is in favor of the war.

Civilian casualities...
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/stor ... ernational

Can I ask people ,

Do you want the US and coalition forces to win the war in Iraq (with min casualities).

Originally posted by at99
Can I ask people ,

Do you want the US and coalition forces to win the war in Iraq (with min casualities).

YES!!!

Even though I'm very against this war, opinions on that don't really matter any more. I would just like to see an end to the conflict, before more people die.

Originally posted by Nightmare
YES!!!

Even though I'm very against this war, opinions on that don't really matter any more. I would just like to see an end to the conflict, before more people die.

I feel pretty much the same. I hate everything about this war, but since it is happening and there is no going back... I would like to see it over with soon.. with minimal casualities on both sides...
Unfortunately though... I don't think it is going to be quite as swift and simple as was projected...

Originally posted by Nightmare
YES!!!

Even though I'm very against this war, opinions on that don't really matter any more. I would just like to see an end to the conflict, before more people die.

I couldnt agree more, my friend.

The conflict is wreaks of the devil's work, and is negative in all aspects.

But what good would it be if the troops were bottled up down there? The bombings would still occur, more civilians would be slaughtered by those fly-overs. Meanwhile, the troops on both sides would be getting extensive casualties, if there really did get bottled up. Before long, if the American army became weakened severely, there would be a good possibility the draft would be installed, and several people would flee, while others would go to Iraq, where more innocents would be killed. Same COULD happen with the English and Aussie armies (I dont know what their rules are on drafting).

Now that America is in the war, and Bush has his mind made up, its too late to pull out. And even if the draft DOESNT happen, and lets say that USA does pull out...the casualties would be at least what they were in Vietnam. With all this guerrilla warfare, Its beginning to look like the Vietnam of the Middle East.

So, yes, get this war over with now that its started...why would ANYONE want an elongated period of time of death and destruction of innocents and combantants, alike?

Well said Tybs

Originally posted by dragon wench
I don't think it is going to be quite as swift and simple as was projected...

Heh...Both North and South firmly believed the US Civil War would only last a few days, or weeks at the most...then four years later...

Perhaps the current impatience of the US citizenry is due to the fact that we live in an "instant" society and our patience is eroding by miles every day. Everything has to be high-speed -- high-speed internet, instant communication via cell phone, etc. We hate to wait for anything anymore, and when we are forced to wait we get fussy and hostile, like infants. So when the war wasn't won after the first two days, people started complaining it wasn't going fast enough

I say lets bring the nukes in, save more American lives that way, bomb those darn Iraquis back to the stone age.

Is anyone willing to admit they want the US and coalition to lose the war ?

Originally posted by at99
Is anyone willing to admit they want the US and coalition to lose the war (or just win with many casulaities on US side as possible)?

Now why on earth would anyone on SYM would want something like that to occur. Seriously I haven't come across a single a post or poster stipulating that he or she wants to see a horrible slaughter of human lives like that in which you mentioned. With fellow friends in the region, even proposing such a question is highly offensive and trivialises the efforts of the people sent into the region as well as those who are forced to defend Hussien's regime.

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Chanak: According to the Red Cross it is the US/UK bombing that has damaged pump stations, that has led to the water and electricity shut off in Basra as well as Umm Quasr. I have not seen any confirmed reports regarding the electricity in Basra, only that it was the US/UK attacks in Umm Quasr that cut off the electricity there. Hopefully the ship with aid is arriving to Umm Quasr later today.

The ship is called Sir Galahad

14 civilians dead when an allied robot hits a house in Bagdad.

This is where it all becomes confusing...for there are a number of paramiltary groups and militias within Iraq that the regime there terms "civilians"...they did during the Persian Gulf War, and apparently they're doing it now. A link to an article online follows that goes into that with some detail:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749_asp.htm

It's not clear right now whether that was a Coalition hit, or Iraqi ordinance that destroyed that area. Until more information is forthcoming, it's all purely conjecture.

A brief comment on the lack of utilities in Basra: one stated objective of Coalition forces right now is the preservation, whenever possible, of the infrastructure that already exists within Iraq, to the exclusion of military targets. Iraqi troops, militia, and paramilitary groups have been busy destroying these things behind them as Coalition troops advance. This is also what happened in Basra, unless I have been misinformed. Iraqi troops holding that city have not only had to deal with British troops, but also with an insurrection within the city. The Iraqi troops were mortaring the rebellious citizens...and in response, the British were shelling the Iraqis to aid the uprising.

The Iraqi practice of staging false surrenders and disguising troops as "civilians" is well documented, and is something that also happened during the Persian Gulf War. The statement from the Iraqi official to that affect in the article I linked to above doesn't come as a surprise to me, nor is it a surprise to commanders out in the field. It isn't a surprise to my fellow soldiers, either. We knew that already.

Originally posted by at99
Is anyone willing to admit they want the US and coalition to lose the war (or just win with many casulaities on US side as possible)?

I find this post offensive in the extreme. I support the war in Iraq, and as a result I disagree with some people here. At the same time, to suggest that those people are wishing for the loss of life on ANY scale, let alone what you suggest is simply wrong IMO. From what I have seen, those here who post in opposition to the war do so with the thoughts of the lives lost by Iraqi and coalition forces as one motivating factor.

I asked if anyone would admit that they want the US to lose the war. (OK I took the other part out if people found this to insulting)


(you dont have to answer, but I am not sure about peoples position given comments been made around here, it is not obvious)

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Now why on earth would anyone on SYM would want something like that to occur. Seriously I haven't come across a single a post or poster stipulating that he or she wants to see a horrible slaughter of human lives like that in which you mentioned. With fellow friends in the region, even proposing such a question is highly offensive and trivialises the efforts of the people sent into the region as well as those who are forced to defend Hussien's regime.

Reading your comments Tam it is hardly obvious of your position.....and dont assume everyone in the world (including non-english part) would want a US /coalition win.

Asking if anyone wanted to see the US lose the war is one thing, but to imply that they would care to see the US win with as many casualties as possible is quite another.

Parentheses or no, the insinuation was evident to any who would care to read your post.