News your connection to The Boston Globe
Today's Globe  |  Latest News:   Local     Nation     World    |   NECN   Education   Obituaries   Special sections  
Rebuilding Iraq


Soldiers and humanitarian aid

The UN and relief organizations such as Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders oppose the US and British approach of using troops to undertake initial relief operations in battle zones. They say soldiers delivering aid is dangerous to civilians because it can turn civilians into targets. What do you think?
Read the story: Humanitarian aid shipments arrive

Response pages:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  

Page 1

I think we should be less concerned about the civilians and more concerned about the safety of our soldiers. Our men and women have already come under fire from Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians so how can we be sure those we would be delivering aid to aren't Iraqi soldiers in disguise. Unfortunately that is the way it is. It is just another example of how Sadam's regime is hurting the people of Iraq. In summary, our soldier's should not deliver aid right now for their safety not the civilian's safety.

D.R., Waltham

I was for the war until US military became MIA, KIA, POWs. Why are we bombing someone and then sending food? This does not make sense.


The soldiers should know the difference between Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians. There will always be a risk, a crazed soldier or two, but those poor civilians need all the aid they can get. Such a wretched life..

Maria, Boston

Yes. The civilians and soldiers are the ones who pay for everything - the war, the loss, everything, despite the fact that the war is started with the politicians. Aid should not be stifled by politics and if we're as big and mighty and intelligent as we say, then our military should be able to thwart any hostile troops that try to prevent aid. It's our responsibility if we're trying to liberate the Iraqis (there's no liberation if you're starving to death). Otherwise it's just a trail of carnage. Considering how much bragging we've been doing about how big and mighty and wealthy we are, we should be able to thwart the Iraqi army and deliver aid. Yes it makes it harder but it's part of teh plan, isn't it? Otherwise it's not a fight for freedom and liberation. It would also help the soldiers and our country as well as Iraqi civilians. Much has been said about the cost of rebuilding Iraq in terms of money and time. Therefore, the sooner we start the better.

Ann, Boston

It is our soldiers who are at risk. Anyone of the civilians has the potential to kill one of the soldiers. We found that out in Viet Nam. The Iraqis aren't really joyful for the deliveries as they feel that we caused the problem in the first place. Unfortunately war is war and death by all means is the product.

jonny , chelsea

How about a little humanitarian aid here at home? 3 million jobs lost since W took office, huge cuts to education, veterans' benefits and homeland security to fund an enormous tax cut for the top 1% income bracket and yet we somehow suddenly have all this money not only for humanitarian aid and a lengthly post-war occupation but also to buy off our "allies" like Turkey? Good thing this administration has the current crisis to take people's minds off of their outrageously incompetent domestic policies which raid the treasury.

TC, Boston

Absolutely they should deliver food to these poor, underfed, thirsty people! It shows that we are there for THEM (not oil people-please stop beating this one to death!) to help THEM help THEMSELVES! My husband is apart of the MP relief efforts which escort the convoys of all this relief to these people---just look at the pictures-they have NO clean water and are fighting over it--they have NO food--and are fighting over it. Where is the Iraqi government now all you peacniks? They are too busy HANGING WOMEN WHO WAVE TO AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN GRATITUDE for the food she was given to give to her CHILDREN. And you just want to turn your backs and have sit ins and protests. God Bless America! Prayers to ALL the families and soldiers who are affected-on BOTH sides.

soldierswife, Johnston

Yes, humanitarian aid should begin ASAP. Considering the carnage and devistation that we're causing in the name of "freedom" and "liberation" it's the least we can do. Isn't it sad that in the year 2003 the United States of America has to resort to mass murder to achieve it's self-serving, solely political agenda? How does Mr. Bush sleep at night? I hope that the Supreme Court judges who appointed him president are happy with their choice!

Danny, Boston

The people of Iraq need medical supplies and food desperately right now. But they also need to stay alive -- which means staying as far away from military targets and forces as possible. There's a good reason the U.N. doesn't want soldiers delivering relief: it puts civilians too close to danger and makes them targets. We've already had too many civilian deaths in this war, and with the way things are going, we're bound to have more. Do we really want to increase that further?

Alexandra Hall, Brookline

Yes the soldiers should give relief to the people. Why not.

Francesca, Stoneham

Response pages:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11