I-Mockery Forum

I-Mockery Forum (http://i-mockery.com/forum/index.php)
-   Philosophy, Politics, and News (http://i-mockery.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   War is suffering (http://i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1868)

Buffalo Tom Mar 23rd, 2003 08:25 AM

War is suffering
 
A reminder that war is about suffering
Precision-guided missiles still wound children among the `collateral damage'


ROBERT FISK
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the American attack on Baghdad is "as targeted an air campaign as has ever existed" but he should not try telling that to 5-year-old Doha Suheil.

She looked at me yesterday morning, drip feed attached to her nose, a deep frown over her small face as she tried vainly to move the left side of her body.

The cruise missile that exploded close to her home in the Radwaniyeh suburb of Baghdad blasted shrapnel into her tiny legs — they were bound up with gauze — and, far more seriously, into her spine.

Now she has lost all movement in her left leg.

Her mother bends over the bed and straightens her right leg which the little girl thrashes around outside the blanket.

Somehow, Doha's mother thinks that if her child's two legs lie straight beside each other, her daughter will recover from her paralysis.

She was the first of 101 patients brought to the Al-Mustansaniya College Hospital after America's blitz on the city began on Friday night. Seven other members of her family were wounded in the same cruise missile bombardment; the youngest, a 1-year-old baby, was being breastfed by her mother at the time.

There is something sick, obscene about these hospital visits.

We bomb.

They suffer.

Then we turn up and take pictures of their wounded children.

The Iraqi minister of health decides to hold an insufferable press conference outside the wards to emphasize the "bestial" nature of the American attack.

The Americans say that they don't intend to hurt children.

And Doha Suheil looks at me and the doctors for reassurance, as if she will awake from this nightmare and move her left leg and feel no more pain.

So let's forget, for a moment, the cheap propaganda of the regime and the equally cheap moralizing of Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush, and take a trip around the Al-Mustansaniya College Hospital.

For the reality of war is ultimately not about military victory and defeat, or the lies about "coalition forces" which our "embedded" journalists are now peddling about an invasion involving only the Americans, the British and a handful of Australians.

War, even when it has international legitimacy — which this war does not — is primarily about suffering.

Take 50-year-old Amel Hassan, a peasant woman with tattoos on her arms and legs but who now lies on her hospital bed with massive purple bruises on her shoulders — they are now twice their original size — who was on her way to visit her daughter when the first American missile struck Baghdad.

"I was just getting out of the taxi when there was a big explosion and I fell down and found my blood everywhere," she told me. "It was on my arms, my legs, my chest."

Amel Hassan still has multiple shrapnel wounds on her chest.

Her 5-year-old daughter Wahed lies in the next bed, whimpering with pain.

She had climbed out of the taxi first and was almost at her aunt's front door when the explosion cut her down. Her feet are still bleeding, although the blood has clotted around her toes and is staunched by the bandages on her ankles and lower legs.

Two little boys are in the next room. Sade Selim is 11; his brother Omar is 14. Both have shrapnel wounds to their legs and chest.

Isra Riad is in the third room with almost identical injuries, in her case shrapnel wounds to the legs as she ran in terror from her house into her garden as the blitz began.

Imam Ali is 23 and has multiple shrapnel wounds in her abdomen and lower bowel.

Najla Hussein Abbas still tries to cover her head with a black scarf but she cannot hide the purple wounds to her legs.

Multiple shrapnel wounds. After a while, "multiple shrapnel wounds" sounds like a natural disease which, I suppose — among a people who have suffered more than 20 years of war — it is.

And all this, I asked myself yesterday, was all this for Sept. 11, 2001?

All this was to "strike back" at our attackers, albeit that Doha Suheil, Wahed Hassan and Imam Ali have nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with those crimes against humanity, any more than has the awful Saddam?

Who decided, I wonder, that these children, these young women should suffer for Sept. 11?

Wars repeat themselves. Always, when "we" come to visit those we have bombed, we have the same question.

In Libya in 1986, I remember how American reporters would repeatedly cross-examine the wounded: had they perhaps been hit by shrapnel from their own anti-aircraft fire? Again, in 1991, "we" asked the Iraqi wounded the same question. And yesterday, a doctor found himself asked by a British radio reporter — yes, you've guessed it — "Do you think, doctor, that some of these people could have been hit by Iraqi anti-aircraft fire?"

Should we laugh or cry at this? Should we always blame "them" for their own wounds?

Certainly we should ask why those cruise missiles, fired from ships in the Persian Gulf, exploded where they did, at least 320 in Baghdad alone.

Isra Riad came from Sayadiyeh, where there is a big military barracks.

Najla Abbas' home is in Risalleh, where there are villas belonging to Saddam's family.

The two small Selim brothers live in Shirta Khamse where there is a storehouse for military vehicles.

But that's the whole problem.

Targets are scattered across the city.

The poor — and all the wounded I saw yesterday were poor — live in cheap, sometimes wooden houses that collapse under blast damage.

It is the same old story. If we make war — however much we blather on about our care for civilians — we are going to kill and maim the innocent.

Dr. Habib Al-Hezai counted 101 patients wounded in the raids and now staying in his hospital. Eighty-five of them are civilians — including 20 women and six children — and 16 soldiers. No one will say how many soldiers were killed during the actual attack.

Driving across Baghdad yesterday was an eerie experience. The targets were indeed carefully selected, even though their destruction inevitably struck the innocent.

There was one presidential palace I saw with 12-metre high statues of the Arab warrior Saladdin in each corner — the face of each was, of course, that of Saddam — and, neatly in between, a great black hole gouged into the facade of the building.

The ministry of air weapons production was pulverized, a massive heap of pre-stressed concrete and rubble.

It was as if burning palaces and blazing ministries and piles of smoking rubble were a normal part of daily Baghdad life.

But then again, no one under the present regime would want to spend too long looking at such things, would they?

And Iraqis have noticed what all this means. In 1991, the Americans struck the refineries, the electricity grid, the water pipes, communications.

But yesterday, Baghdad could still function.

The landline telephones worked; the Internet operated; the electrical power was at full capacity; the bridges over the Tigris remained unbombed.

Because, of course, when — "if" is still a sensitive phrase these days — the Americans get here, they will need a working communications system, electricity, transport.

What has been spared is not a gift to the Iraqi people: it is for the benefit of Iraq's supposed new masters.

The Iraq daily newspaper emerged yesterday with an edition of just four pages, a clutch of articles on the "steadfastness" of the nation — steadfastness in Arabic is soummoud, the same name as the missile some of which Iraq destroyed before Bush forced the U.N. inspectors to leave by going to war — and a headline which read "President: Victory will come [sic] in Iraqi hands".

Again, there has been no attempt by the U.S. to destroy the television facilities because they presumably want to use them on arrival.

During the bombing on Friday night, an Iraqi general appeared live on television to reassure the nation of victory.

As he spoke, the blast waves from cruise missile explosions blew in the curtains behind him and shook the television camera.

Yesterday afternoon the Iraqis lit massive fires of oil around the city of Baghdad in the hope of misleading the guidance system of the cruise missiles.

Smoke against computers.

The air-raid sirens began to howl again just after 10:20 a.m. Toronto time, followed by the utterly predictable sound of explosions.

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 09:42 AM

War kills people?!?! War is not something you can ignore, it is real and has real conquences and deaths?!? Sometimes people unfortuantly DIE in a war that are not targeted?!?



I DID NOT KNOW THIS!

Thank you for showing me the light! WE should NEVER have went into WWII and fought, because the few children that were unintentionally killed by the Allied troops MEANS NOTHING compared to all the holocaust children! Because it was the evil, imperialistic United States of AmeriKKKa that dropped those bombs! If Hitler wanted to kill children, oh that’s cool!


Vietnam, never should have gone there! We killed children by mistake and that is EVIL! We should all be tried under the International Court for crimes against humanity! The North Vietnamese taking over, putting people in reeducation camps, murdering the people and making sure the children's children are slaves to communist ideas and thoughts, oh... as long as the jingoistic United States of AmeriKKKa doesn't do it!

Cambodia! Two MILLION killed! Lots of kids, but as long as it was Pol Pot and not the racist, capitalist, USA, its ok!

The current war. Children, sadly, have been killed. But saddam rapes, murders, gouges the eyes out of, and orphans children every day! I don’t see you talking about him, protesting his evil régime or anything of the sort!

Oh yeah, N. Korea! That fat pie faced fuck lives in his mansions while his people STARVE and DIE under the great-glorious intellectual fuck-up land of Communism. But if we attacked him if he tried to nuke us, and if we killed just ONE child on accident, it was an evil war and the United States of AmeriKKKa should be taken to the ICC and tried for crimes!


Jesus Christ, you are the most limp-wristed pussy I have ever had the displeasure of sharing the Earth with. Go bury your fucking head back in Canadian soil and let the big boys do the heavy lifting. When people in your own govt tell you that your country is a bunch of fucking unappreciative crybaby pussies, that is fucking pathetic.

Ronnie Raygun Mar 23rd, 2003 10:50 AM

In most cases, lack of war means suffering.

FS Mar 23rd, 2003 03:12 PM

Congratulations Ronnie. That must be the most preposterous statement you have ever made.

Duh. We all know war is hell and causes suffering - that doesn't mean we should sit down and act like it's ordinary everyday business. The moment you stop feeling a shiver go down your spine at the sight of dead bodies on TV is the moment you might as well detach yourself from reality all together and pretend it's a happy joy joy world because your living room looks particularly peaceful.

It's sickened me how things like the MOAB and the Shock and Awe bombardment have been flaunted around and turned into icons of superiority and might.

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 04:01 PM

Our military campaign IS a form of superority. Do you think superiority is happy-flower power? Sorry, wrong answer. No matter if you think we came from primordial ooze or from a Supreme Being, the highest order of the land is the one who can stop someone via war and battle. Do you think the U.S. sat around and dead peaceful protests when the British was fucking the citizens over? Nope, they took action. Then they went to WAR.

W-A-R War. When people realize that battle is a part of life then they will realize the human conditon. There is no utopia we could make that could make us without war. The only way it will EVER happen is if we are enslaved and our minds altered or a Second Coming-type event. I know many are not ready to accept this, but when you do, you can finally accept the reality of living as a human being on the planet Earth.

AChimp Mar 23rd, 2003 04:08 PM

Quote:

When people in your own govt tell you that your country is a bunch of fucking unappreciative crybaby pussies, that is fucking pathetic.
You are the one that is fucking pathetic. You have no concept of how a parliamentary democracy works. The job of the Opposition is to attack and belittle everything that the ruling party does, no matter whether they agree with it personally or not.

If Canada went to war, the Opposition would be coming up with hundreds of reasons why we should stay put. Since we have chosen to stay put, they are instead coming up with hundreds of reasons as to why we are pussies.

Protoclown Mar 23rd, 2003 04:10 PM

So VinceZeb...basically what you're saying is that humanity is shit and there is no hope for us, right?

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 04:19 PM

No, humanity isnt shit, but its flawed. And it takes the ones who move the world to make sure the evil that flows in it is stomped into powder. I don't look at humanity and see joy happy rubber baby buggy bumpers. I see there are two sets of people: People who want to make sure that the basic freedoms for humans are protected, and ones who could/would destroy them for their own power. If the ones who are evil are destroyed, I cry river. :boohoo

Protoclown Mar 23rd, 2003 04:20 PM

Who decides what "evil" is? Who gets to define evil? Who makes these decisions and by what right do they make them?

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 04:25 PM

I'm sorry, but if you need evil defined, than you have a serious problem with basic human morality.

Protoclown Mar 23rd, 2003 04:27 PM

So you think that everyone in the world will agree on what "evil" is? It's that black and white, is it?

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 04:33 PM

Actually, good and evil in the end game are black and white. There are shades of grey that lead to it, but in the end, it is black and white.

The reality of existance is black and white. You exist, or you dont. You live or you die. you eat or you don't. You can give birth or you cant. I can input messages via computer to this message board, or I cant. Existance is black and white. Human emotion makes the shades of grey that we try to define as real.

If I decide that I should rape little 4-day old babies, most people who are not mentally deranged would say I should be shot on sight. I can sit around and rationalize and call it good because they like it, but everyone that is sane knows its sickening and stupid.

AChimp Mar 23rd, 2003 04:37 PM

Yep. Go ahead and ignore the guy that made you look ignorant. :)

Protoclown Mar 23rd, 2003 04:41 PM

VinceZeb...is abortion evil?

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 04:41 PM

No, actually Achimp your statement was so ignorant and out of context I chose to argue and debate with someone that had serious statements.

This has nothing to do with opposition when it comes to the Canadian Parlament. This guy, and I wish I had his name and the article source, got up and chewed out everyone about not supporting the U.S. after all we have done for our nothern neightbor.

Opposition and questioning are great, and should be done. I do it all the time and I encourage it daily. But dont question and be in opposition to everything up to the point that your mind is infected with the disease of a smooth talker with shiny objects.

AChimp Mar 23rd, 2003 04:59 PM

You must be talking about Svend Robinson. He's a nobody who's just looking for the attention he thinks he deserves.

Buffalo Tom Mar 23rd, 2003 06:02 PM

I will do everyone a favour and summarize your post: You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Egads, man! What are you doing wasting your time here, applying your skill to coming up with ways to debate with reasoned and intelligent people? You should be in a forum worthy of your intelligence; I think a show like 'Romper Room' has an audience at your level of mental development. Hmmm, compared to a simpleton like you, the toddlers on that show might seem like nuanced doctoral candidates, so perhaps you ought to stick to eating the glue that no doubt has eaten away at your brain.

I would pity you, if I thought you were a human being worth even an gram of compassion. However, you have clearly demonstrated that you are not moved by the suffering of your fellow human beings, with your callous dismissal of civilian casualties and your willingness to let other people's children die trying to achieve the foreign policy aims of a self-interested administration. If these tales of misery do not give you pause, then I suggest you renounce your membership in the human race and let the rest of us get on with evolving. It's genetic dead-weight like yourself that is impeding our development as a species.

Yes, Saddam is a menace that must be dealt with, no one can argue that. However, invading a country whose population is already suspicious of American intentions, in light of their non-support of revolts in 1991 encouraged by Bush Senior, and engaging in a conflict that could potentially de-stabilize an already volatile region by increasing the ranks of radical, anti-Western forces, is not the most pragmatic course of action. One of my issues with this entire affair is that your administration seems to think that 'might makes right', and fails to take into the account the wider implications of their actions.

If the best counter-offensive you can muster against people's arguments is to impugn their character with obsolete phrases like 'limp-wristed', then, to paraphrase your own vacuous leadership, you should lay down your intellectual arms and go home. Yield up the field to someone who is more skilled at verbal jousting.

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 06:15 PM

I have not seen reasonable people on this board except for the conservatives and Proto does have his moments. Please, you can’t handle someone that knows the facts about the world we live in, so you just throw insults. I throw them after I answer the questions. So go on with your petty little insults and your clever little comebacks and I will go on being a well-informed intelligent person that is capable of making informed decisions based on the information I find and I am given. I also like lowering myself to the level of competition that I have. Shows their idioicy.

Sorry to inform you, bud, but we ain’t going anywhere as a species. I am saddened that I have to stalwart your evolution to the next level of mankind, but we are the same as we ever were: We still fight, we still want the same things, we do the same things we did in just different ways since it all began.

Might does make right. How was Hitler stopped? How was the U.S.S.R. stopped? How did the United States become a free nation? Last time I checked, we didn’t play patty-cake with them and smoke the peace pipe. We blew the fucker away, we built up our military to the point where they went into bankruptcy, and we used the force of the militia and leaders more wise and intelligent than anyone of us.

So if your country has to go through the horror of being invaded by a rogue army or hell for the sake of argument why not an alien invasion, you can go up to them and talk nicely. After they destroy your nation, please continue to talk nicely and hand out flowers. Me and the ones with brains will shine up our evil guns and get ready to save our own and your ass.

Protoclown Mar 23rd, 2003 06:20 PM

Back to the topic of morality...is abortion evil?

ItalianStereotype Mar 23rd, 2003 06:24 PM

oh god, the last thing we need is another abortion topic.

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 06:28 PM

I loathe the argument of abortion, because the only side that will change is from pro-"choice" to pro-life and people are set in their ways. But since you asked me, I will respond.

Yes. Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a human being because the parent is too inconvenienced to have the child. There are miniscule times where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother or is a child of rape. The problem is that the pro-abortion groups (and lets just admit that is what they are, I mean, the choice is for abortion, it isn’t like they are choosing between steak, chicken and fish) are so damn enamored with their rights that they forget the babies with their brains sucked out of their heads. The media uses nice little words like "skull contents" instead of "brain matter" and fetus instead of developing child.

Abortion should be allowed to be legal/illegal by the state. Roe Vs Wade was a major liberal victor in the sense that it took the power away from the state and gave it to the govt. My libertarian side hates this sham of a court ruling and my moralistic side knows that abortion is pure evil. Especially partial-birth. Pictures of that will make you want to puke.

Protoclown Mar 23rd, 2003 06:40 PM

So since the United States supports and allows abortion, should our country be "shot on sight" by the rest of the world? Should the evil that WE as a country support (and I know you say it should be on a state by state basis, but right now it's a federal issue) be done away with? By having us destroyed, perhaps?

You even admitted that there are certain situations where abortion is acceptable. So how can it be "evil" then, if it's wrong in some situations but okay in others? Clearly it can only be judged on a case-by-case basis then, right? So I guess it's not so "black and white" an issue after all.

My point is, almost NOTHING in the realm of morality is as black and white as it first appears, you can always find points on which large numbers of people will disagree, creating "grey areas" where any divisionary lines between the sides of good and evil can only be arbitrarily chosen at best. So by giving any ONE person or group the power to MAKE those arbitrary decisions is extremely dangerous. Can't you see that? So there again we are left with the question of how exactly we ALL AGREE on a definition of what is "evil".

ItalianStereotype Mar 23rd, 2003 06:43 PM

ugh. abortion is NEVER acceptable, unless it is obvious that someone is going to die from the birthing process.

didnt the president sign the ban on partial birth abortions? i would hesitate to say our country "supports" abortion

VinceZeb Mar 23rd, 2003 06:47 PM

I never said it was acceptable. Besides rape/manipulation of someone young, dicks had to go into pussies and sperm had to be ejaculated to make a kid by everyone's free will.

I would rather it be decided by the state instead of the fed govt. I dont like it, but I do have to deal with it.

Protoclown Mar 23rd, 2003 06:53 PM

Okay, fine. You said there are situations where IT IS NECESSARY.

My point is, there are EXCEPTIONS. ANY time you have exceptions to the rule, you're no longer looking at a situation that is "black and white".


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:23 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.