humanitarian disaster in fallujah

Yes because any aid that the Us military was providing would be overshadowed by the unnescary risk the aid workers were putting themselves in .. maybe its what came first the humanitarian 'disaster' or the US military assault ?? who fundementaly caused it and who took action to stop this occuring

also this 'Humanatarian disaster' has been looming for a long time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2295589.stm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/unre-j13.shtml


To me it is clear the motives behind the story as a whole. Not that the aid was trying to get through but the amricans were stopping them (nasty americans) . This is true (not the nasty americans part ) but the motives were good not bad.

anyway this 'story' has happened before http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/aid/2004/0423nearly.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/foreign/fallujah.html in a way ?? I can see why they may not have wanted an escort but it was needed . because any bad consequences would have been blamed on the Americans ... I guess realy they are in a lose lose situation... i wonder how it would have been reported if it was anybody else apart from us troops.

 

So you're saying it's acceptible for the Americans to let innocent people die in order for them to save face?

 

No i am not saying that.

 

So then you presumably accept that the Americans should've allowed in the aid workers regardless of any potential negative publicity?

 

Yes with an escort

 

Why with an escort?

 

Those articles talk about the humanitarian disaster which would be caused by military assault on Iraq. This assault happened, and the predicted humanitarian disaster happened too. Who caused the current humanitarian crisis in Fallujah? The tactics of the US military in the siege and assault upon the city has caused a bad situation to descend into crisis. The Red Crescent sought to give aid to those in need, the US military blocked this aid from reaching the people who needed it when they needed it. What's your point?

 

I think i went over that at least twice earlier.

 

I don't realy have a problem with what you were posting Showmet..my point was with Pauls post. falujah was a insurgent base and the threat that needed addressing..It was a humanitarian disater caused by terrorist activity wich forced fallujah to become a no go zone , thus creating a worse humanitarian disaster. But if the Americans and their allies had not gone into iraq in the first place then it would not be a humanitarian disaster i suppose ??? . thus throwing this whole thing back to should we be their in the first place..i guess. I don't want to go over that again realy.

By the next day (14th) the Red crescent situation was a none story.

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/cityzxsdisplaced14.htm

 

Let me make it a little clearer. Why should they only be allowed in with an escort if negative publicity is not a greater concern than saving human lives?

 

Because tragic as it is the media would spend more time covering the story if some aid worker got hurt/killed ... (the story is not in the news anymore is it ??).
The US military would be deemed callous for allowing unarmed civilians into a war zone, they would have a bit more blood on their hands. For the diifrence of a day or so the situation was brought more into control. Red crescent i think were trying to do too much unfortunatly . They were allowed on the outskirts of the city just not in the city itself, at that time...i thought that was a wise move .. ???.

 

So you're contradicting your earlier statement. Now you're saying that PR concerns are more important than saving lives?

 

If you wish Dok'...

I am sure the dicision was made purely to put the aid workers at the least risk. I am sure thoughts on how it would look in the media were 0.001% of a consideration...i was just telling it like it is (IMHO).

 

Nothing to do with what "I wish". You said one thing, then you said another.

The decision regarding risk should be entirely up to the aid workers. Unless there are PR concerns, that is......

 

I could not see were i had contradicted myself ? so instead of defending something i just flipantly said if you wish..thats all. Make it a little more clear were i did if you want .

Entirely upto the aid workers , ok fair enough . Just who would have got the blame for any incidents ?. As killing aid workers is a war crime , and getting caught in the cross fire is a possibility.. i doubt if it would have been wise for the military to give the green light .. With an escort it would be more secure and the prospect of friendly fire lower. It would have been borderline irresponsible for the aid workers bosss to let them go in alone and the same for the military.

So my point of view seems like a great PR consideration was considered ...but i doubt it was at the for front of decision making ... its just plain common sense.

 

You agreed that it wasn't acceptable for the Americans to let people die just in order to save face. You then said that "Because tragic as it is the media would spend more time covering the story if some aid worker got hurt/killed ... (the story is not in the news anymore is it ??).
The US military would be deemed callous for allowing unarmed civilians into a war zone", thus indicating that negative PR was a valid consideration after all.

It should have nothing to do with the US military though. If the aid workers want to go in, and the risk has been made clear, then it should be their decision.

 

They would be deemed callous after the fact, if no aid workers had been harmed it would be just 'aid workers spread aid to the needy' if some had been injured then it would be a full 'special report' job .

If you can't see what i am saying by now then no explanations by myself will be enough .. if you do then why not accept that i may have a point or no point at all..

 

You're fixating on media reports. Media reports should play no part in decisions about humanitarian aid.

I see what you're saying. I disagree with it.

 

I was not fixating on media reports , well not till you started fixating on my so called fixation but i do understand were your comeing from. as far as media reports go we do need the positive as well as the negative and this one was ultimatly positive made negative because it was to try and make the US military seem like they were not considering the humanitarian aid needed.

Fair enough ..

 

That's a matter of perspective. It looks positive to you because of your opinions, it looks negative to me because of mine.