The war you don't see.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.guardian.c...view-war-you-dont-see

Did anyone watch this programme last night, and what are your comments on it?

I personally thought it leaned too far to the left, by showing all the hardships of the population of both Iraq and Afghanistan, without showing what our troops have to contend with also.

It was rather rich to see Pilger and Rageh Omaar bleating on about how they were fooled by the government, I noticed that they didn't speak out while they themselves were lining their pockets reporting on the wars.

[sandyRoe]

Wouldn't Pilger + Omaar get their pay whatever they were reporting?

[anotheoldgit]

I don't think so, in fact I don't think they would have had a job, if they had spoken out then.

[R1Geezer]

standard lefty love in. Lefties hate the forces defence etc unless they are used to protect their cosy little lives so they can hate society with the protection and comfort of society. All pretty standard lefty hand wringing. Perhaps Jake and Gromit can make someting of it

[tigerlelly]

I recorded it as my daughter, who had seen it at the cinema, recommended it. Will keep your comments in mind when I watch it.

[rojash]

"Lefties hate the forces defence etc unless they are used to protect their cosy little lives"

I always understood that that's what the word defence meant. But then what would I know? Judging from your other posts, you know it all so much better than the rest of us.

[anotheoldgit]

vibrasphere

Once more a typical aggressive remark made against me personally..

Why did you find the need to add this, on the end of a perfectly reasonable answer? There is no need for it, it only goes to alienate

/// you could do with opening your eyes and heart.///

[anotheoldgit]

It is an aggressive approach, would you address a person face to face as such?

One doesn't go around telling people what to do, when they haven't first told you what to do.

[jake-the-peg]

There is a bit of a difference between the hardships of our troops and the hardships of the Iraquis and Afghans don't you think.

Our troops are in their country and get to come home

Our troops signed up to join the Army - they got invaded

Our troops have sufferred about 350 fatalities

Iraqi civillian fatalities stand at about 100,000

If our troops are doing a job they are well trained to do it seems that job must be killing civillians in countries thousands of miles away.

It's what they seem to have been most sucessful at

[bazwillrun]

what did you expect from pilger, its his usual left wing garbage, hes made a pretty good living from it

[anotheoldgit]

vibrasphere

You sir are a gentleman, both accepted for the very best of reasons.

[anotheoldgit]

jake-the-peg

Iraq was invaded to get rid of a monster who had killed thousands of his own people, and at first the troops were welcomed with open arms.

Afghanistan was not invaded we are there at the invitation of the Afghan Government.

You say Iraqi civilian fatalities stand at about 100,000, how many of them are casualties due to them being in a war zone, and how many have been (and still are) being murdered almost on a daily basis by their own kind?

To accuse our troops of specifically killing civilians for the sake of it, and then say "It's what they seem to have been most successful at" Is a complete over generalisation, and a traitorous slur on your own British men and women.

All that we have heard before, coming from the 'Far left'

[jake-the-peg]

AOG

//Iraq was invaded to get rid of a monster who had killed thousands of his own people,//

Really? That's odd I really don't remember that justification at the time

I actually remember Tony Blair saying that the war could be avoided if "that monster" co-operated with weapons inspectors

Well seing as that was the reason I suppose we'd better start deposing all the other tyrants then.

How many civillian casulties are due to them being in a war zone?

Pretty much all of them - they were Iraqis and Iraq became a war zone when we invaded!

As for killing civillians for the sake of it - that's irony at the suggestion of how well trained our "heros" are.

The vast majority of casulties happened in the initial invasion.

That tells you something quite clearly - there was absolutely no concern for civillians in the invasion - the place was simply bombed indescriminantly

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Your patriotism blinds you

[sandyRoe]

"Iraq was invaded to get rid of a monster who had killed thousands of his own people."
Not quite. Remember the weapons of mass destruction that could be targeting us in 40 minutes? Regime change is illegal.