OT: Volunteer 'Human Shields' to Head for Iraq

[michael saulnier]

This is perhaps the craziest thing I've heard in some time... [quote]LONDON (Reuters) - A first wave of mainly Western volunteers will leave London this weekend on a convoy bound for Iraq to act as "human shields" at key sites and populous areas in case of a U.S.-led war on Baghdad.[/quote]Here's the rest of the article... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030121/wl_nm/iraq_shields_dc_2 Maybe the CIA can "sneak" someone into Saddam's "personal shield"... What kind of person would do this? guitplayer

[Bunny Knutson]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b]This is perhaps the craziest thing I've heard in some time... What kind of person would do this?[/b][/quote]Someone who is self-sacrificially anti-war.

[joegerardi]

Cool! The LGB's will have something bigger to lock on, and the heat seekers will have an easier time of it with all that amassed body heat! :freak: :D ..Joe

[Bunny Knutson]

That's cute, Joe. You're a bit sick.

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]Originally posted by joegerardi: [b]Cool! The LGB's will have something bigger to lock on, and the heat seekers will have an easier time of it with all that amassed body heat! ..Joe[/b][/quote]Satire? or are you just really ill? :cry:

[BNC]

At least their voulenteers. During the Gulf War Saddam forced children to shield his assets because he figured we would not bomb somehting surrounded by children, he was right. Those people are pretty crazy imho.

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc: [b] [quote]Originally posted by joegerardi: [b]Cool! The LGB's will have something bigger to lock on, and the heat seekers will have an easier time of it with all that amassed body heat! ..Joe[/b][/quote]Satire? or are you just really ill? :cry: [/b][/quote]Some people get a hard-on about all the weapons, flashing lights and explosions that happen in a war ... they either don't have the mental capacity or the compassion and empathy to understand that people die.

[Jotown]

I volunteer Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguillara, Aviril Lavign, Puff Daddy, The Donna's, and everyone that has ever appeared on American Idol, including Paula Abdul.

[joegerardi]

[quote]Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc: [b] Satire? or are you just really ill? :cry: [/b][/quote]If ya gotta ask, you don't understand satire. :D :D oh, CRAP! I just realized I forgot to put the smiley in the original post! My bad everyone! Sorry.

[Jode]

The type of people who would sink to using human shields are precisely the kind that deserve to be blown up the most. As for what motivated the volunteers - hell, don't ask me to explain why anyone would side with Sad-um. They hate America so much that even Hussein looks like a more attractive option. I hope Saddam treats his guests well. Otherwise, they would be forced to discover, the HARD way, that Iraq has no First Amendment.

[Mats Olsson.]

[quote]Originally posted by Jode: [b]They hate America so much that even Hussein looks like a more attractive option. [/b][/quote]I don't think this has anything to do with hate, they just happen to believe that USA has got no right in starting a war against Iraq. Come to think of it, what right does USA have to start a war against Iraq? Possesion of weapons of mass destruction ? Not proven yet. And what about other nations weaponry? (Israel, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, France, UK, USA, North Korea, and probably a whole bunch of others). /Mats

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]Originally posted by joegerardi: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc: [b] Satire? or are you just really ill? :cry: [/b][/quote]If ya gotta ask, you don't understand satire. :D :D oh, CRAP! I just realized I forgot to put the smiley in the original post! My bad everyone! Sorry.[/b][/quote]Well FWIW...I treated it as both...I laughed and cried :)

[BNC]

Good one Jotown! :D But you forgot Mariah...

[Bunny Knutson]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]I volunteer Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguillara, Aviril Lavign, Puff Daddy, The Donna's, and everyone that has ever appeared on American Idol, including Paula Abdul.[/b][/quote]Jotown, I have a strong feeling that this maneuver would only serve to INCREASE the likelihood of Iraq being bombed into oblivion!!! ;) :D

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jode: [b]They hate America so much that even Hussein looks like a more attractive option. [/b][/quote]I don't think this has anything to do with hate, they just happen to believe that USA has got no right in starting a war against Iraq. Come to think of it, what right does USA have to start a war against Iraq? Possesion of weapons of mass destruction ? Not proven yet. And what about other nations weaponry? (Israel, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, France, UK, USA, North Korea, and probably a whole bunch of others). /Mats[/b][/quote]Mats, I don't agree that the "human shield volunteers" are doing this for ANY reason other than anti-American beliefs. Certainly they can't PRO-SADDAM? IMHO, it's a big publicity stunt that has worked to give them a public forum for their ideas that is disproportionate to their ability to influence events. In regard to the "justification" for an attack on Iraq? IRAQ is the one that has provoked an attack by not complying with the UN resolutions that require it to disarm its Weapons of Mass Destruction, (WOMD), AND PROVE that they did so. By kicking out the original inspectors in 1996, before fullfilling their requirements, we (the US and Security Council members) COULD have, and perhaps should have used military force to compel them then. I think the fact we didn't do that only gave Saddam more confidence. But, like most problems, ignoring it doesn't make it go away. I don't think informed governments dispute Saddam's quest and production of WOMD, he hasn't accounted for their destruction... It's HIS responsibility to do so. Time's almost up... and it's unlikely he will comply fully in time. So, here we go. But I don't know... Maybe the real reason we're about to attack IRAQ... We can. guitplayer

[Lee Flier]

Hmm... so if we're attacking Iraq because they're in violation of a U.N. mandate, how come the U.N. is against us going in? And being anti-war doesn't make anyone anti-American. I don't support what these people are doing or anything, but it's ridiculous to say they're doing it because they're anti-American.

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]And being anti-war doesn't make anyone anti-American. I don't support what these people are doing or anything, but it's ridiculous to say they're doing it because they're anti-American.[/quote]Thanks...I love you Lee.

[joegerardi]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]Hmm... so if we're attacking Iraq because they're in violation of a U.N. mandate, how come the U.N. is against us going in?[/b][/quote]Because the UN hasn't the capability TO go in. Look at the facts here: Iraq, no- strike that, [b][i]Saddam[/i][/b] has been in material breach since this whole thing started. He has thumbed his nose at the world the entire time, and UN resolution after UN resolution has done nothing. What's that line from the musical "1776"? "Piddle, twiddle and resolve/Nothing ever do we solve..." So the US takes the hard stand. We've given the peace "process" 12 years, and nothing has come of it, except our fliers are shot missiles at, the original weapons inspectors are thrown out, illegal materials are imported as late as 2002, and the UN looks like a bunch of limp-dick useless bureaucrats. And in a way, this is our fault. There was a time when a war happened, that we went in afterwards, and made sure it was over- Thus WWII. But that's when we were allowed to kill and hate our enemies. Now, we war until they say they're sorry, and we all have a big group hug, and hope everyone plays by the rules. That ain't the way of it anymore. The world has seen that they can bomb the World Trade center (the first attack) and get away with it. They saw that they can bomb our embassies and get away with it, they saw that they can blow up our warships, and get away with it, so they think they can do as they please. President Bush ISN'T President Clinton. He's got a brass pair, and not only are they big, they're shiny, too. He's not going to allow this to continue: He's going to put a stop to it. So, I take back what I originally wrote at the top of this thread. The part about it being satire. If people want to be human shields, then make sure they write goodbye letters to their family, make sure their insurance premiums are paid up, and after the first bomb drops near them, pray they have a Depends with them, and a car not too far away. All that bluster will go out the window, along with a few spleens of their fellow "goody-goodies." ..Joe PS: And Lee, I [b]completely[/b] agree with your statement "And being anti-war doesn't make anyone anti-American."

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]And being anti-war doesn't make anyone anti-American.[/b][/quote]That is true. However, I DO think that there is a strong correlation between the *KINDS* of people who take this kind of radical action and anti-American sentiment. Kind of like abortion clinic protesters who chain themselves to cars are not necessarily church affiliated, but many are. I don't find any humor in what they are doing, but I do think it's kind of stupid of them to do it. And it also causes me to ponder the question of whether they would have taken a similar action to defend the WTC, or if that would be an exception because in their view America deserves it, and the WTC stands as a pinnacle of capitalist greed? Was it a similar mentality in the people who spit on the Vietnam vets when they came home? If their acting as human shields somehow causes one or more of our troops to die, should we still view their act of 'self-sacrifice' as a Humanitarian deed? Is this a good thing that they are doing? Are they acting rationally, or are they whipped up into a frenzy from Peace rallies and acting like martyrs for a cause they may not even understand? Either way, it seems like a pretty pointless thing to do. It won't change anything. Those who are adamantly opposed to an Iraqi invasion will yelling "see, how heartless we are?!!! We are bombing our own people!!!", and those who feel the invasion is justified are going to say, "that's the chance you take when you go in harm's way.". So, ultimately nothing of value will come from it, and it's doubtful that these people are even concerning themselves with the reasons why the invasion might be the right thing, or the wrong thing for America to do.

[Lee Flier]

Uhhh... well Joe, the thing is that the destruction of its arsenal and the allowing of weapons inspections were simply conditions for the lifting of U.N. sanctions. There's been a general embargo against Iraqi oil since the end of the Gulf War and Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors up until 1998, by which time the sanctions had been partially lifted. Since Saddam has shown that he is indeed incapable of playing nice with our money, the logical thing to do is resume the embargo. So long as the full embargo was in effect (early 90's) we didn't hear a peep out of Saddam. The U.N. may not have the ability to go to war but they can certainly voice support for any U.S. coalition that wishes to declare war. But apparently the U.S. is alone in its assertion that Iraq has actually breached U.N. agreements. So how does any of this make Iraq an enemy of the U.S.? They pose no direct threat to us, and the U.N. apparently doesn't feel they're a legitimate threat to the rest of the world either, especially under continued sanctions. So why not simply resume the sanctions? Or if we simply must get involved in taking Saddam out of power, why not help his opposition overthrow him, as we did with the Taliban? And since when are we in the business of taking out despots for the sake of it? We ought to be more worried about North Korea and Somalia. If we really wanted Saddam out of power it would have happened a long time ago anyway.

[Dogfur]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]If we really wanted Saddam out of power it would have happened a long time ago anyway.[/b][/quote]This is the number one reason the "Iraq Crisis" doesn't pass the smell test. I also hardily believe we have the ability to simply "take him out" in more traditional ways ( bang! ), but they do not drum up military spending. Follow the money folks, don't get caught in flag wavin', God fearin' rhetoric.

[BNC]

"I also hardily believe we have the ability to simply "take him out" in more traditional ways ( bang! ), " Keep in mind that Saddam has body double all over and a whole slew of security guards, but yeah, we could have done that.

[michael saulnier]

It's clear intellegent people can disagree. Even on topics of great import. Opinions can certainly differ greatly and both sides of an issue can be presented effectively in many cases. It's harder to debate when "facts" are in dispute. Lee, you suggested that we "resume the embargo". Your rationale is that "when the full embargo was in effect we didn't hear a peep from Saddam". Well, Saddam attacked both the Kurds and Shite Muslim factions in IRAQ, blocked, then booted the UN inspectors, has consistantly attacked our planes in the "No fly zone" (however futile an attempt), and most importantly failed to meet the terms of the original UN demands to destroy and prove he destroyed his WOMD. He was far from "peep-less". Saddam has shown he will tolerate ANY amount of pain for his citizens. It's obvious that HE doesn't suffer any lack of food, medical care, or anything else he needs... He and his family simply smuggle what they want in from Jordan or elsewhere. We also know that at the time of the booting of the UN inspectors he still had MASSIVE unacounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. How did we know? His brother-in-law defected... remember... the one who was in charge of the bio and chem weapons program. HE told us that the inspectors were regularly fooled and that Saddam had not destroyed all these weapons. So we can presume this was a FACT, since it came from an internal Iraqi source who was one of the few in a position to know. To say that Saddam and these weapons don't pose a threat to us is to misunderstand the importance of the mid-east in our economic situation. Whether you want to argue that the "war is about oil" or not... it is about our interests... and those interests ARE obviously about oil. Not just for "profits" from the multi-national oil companies... but our WHOLE ECONOMY depends on the availabity of oil. Unless and until THIS changes... The west CANNOT allow Saddam to be a threat to this asset. Not just the US... All the western nations. I also disagree that the UN is not behind the US in this. Perhaps there is still some waffling over the exact timing of when to act... but there was UNANIMOUS support for the UN resolution that gives us the right to act. And that's only important if you support the idea we NEED the sanction of the UN to act... I think the administration sees this as a "nice to have", but not a "must" have. Like it or not, the US IS in a unique position as the only world superpower. This gives us both power AND responsibility. As far as "if we wanted Saddam out of power it would have happened a long time ago anyway..." You probably know the lengths Saddam goes to protect himself, even from his own people. He's constantly on the move, suspicious of even his own security forces, even his own CHILDREN. He uses multiple doubles. They have SEVEN DIFFERENT secret police forces... each watching each other. It's a totalitarian state. NO right to disagree. No right to form an alternative party. If you even APPEAR to buck the regime, either you or your family will pay the price. It's not as easy as you would think to penetrate this sort of defense and security network. Until Saddam's gone, who's going to stand up to him or help us? Remember during the Gulf War when we blew up so many "command bunkers"? We were "Saddam hunting"... and we couldn't find him to kill him. We may not find him in an invasion of Iraq. He could pull a "Bin Laden" and vanish. But he will no longer be in a position to attack us, the oil or anything else. I'm sure you can say everything I've purported to be "facts" are "propaganda", or"what the media want us to think" or whatever. You can continue to believe that if we just "went back to the sanctions" Saddam would not bother anyone. I mean, it's not like he's never attacked anyone before... like starting the 10 year Iran Iraq war, or invading Kuwait... And if we just show him we mean business, well he'll probably just behave... like after he realized he was going to be ejected from Kuwait... clearly seeing our "force", yet still set the entire Kuwaiti oil complex on fire, destroyed the Kuwaiti fresh water plants and more. Nice, easy going Saddam. If you don't believe any of these "facts"... how about supplying some of your own. Give me a few facts about the "good Saddam" or the "reasonable Saddam", or the "willing to be controlled by sanctions Saddam"... ARE THERE ANY? Please don't view this as a personal attack. I respect you and the others right to have your opinions... But help me to understand WHY you have them. I'm no war monger and I don't support the idea that the US can just attact anyone anytime it wants. I also don't think this is the same issue as Korea... and certainly not the same as Pakistan, India, Japan, Israel, France, Russia, China or the UK. Sure Korea is a problem, we've named them as one of the "axis of evil" countries... (a mistake in my opinion)... and they're reacting to what they perceive as being "next on the list"... maybe a regime change there is something we're wishing... but we can and should use different tactics. We're going to attack Iraq, partly because we CAN. They will be swiftly overwhelmed, can't do much conventional war damage to our forces, don't have the conventional military capacity to attack anyone else... that doesn't mean they won't try to launch a non-conventional attack. Saddam has shown he's willing to do it if he has no other choice. He has the weapons. We'll see. The Koreans on the other hand, have a mismatch in troops on the border with South Korea. They probably ALREADY HAVE at least a couple of nuclear weapons. The South Koreans believe they can MERGE with North Korea someday instead of attacking them. North Korea hasn't invaded its neighbors in over 50 years. It isn't anywhere near as big a threat to the west or US... even if it invaded South Korea... (which would start a war it cannot in the long run win), it would not be able to threaten something as important as the mid-east oil reserves. It would obviously be horrible it they attacked South Korea or Japan or something with a nuclear weapon... but it's NOT very likely. The best course of action in Korea is DIFFERENT than the best course of action in IRAQ. To argue that if we attact Saddam in Iraq, we should also attack North Korea is laughable. It's not the same situation. ... yikes this got a bit longer than I expected... oh, well... I'm sure no one's opinions will be changed in the least anyway. :freak: guitplayer

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] And being anti-war doesn't make anyone anti-American. I don't support what these people are doing or anything, but it's ridiculous to say they're doing it because they're anti-American.[/b][/quote]Just to clear up this point. I DIDN'T say being anti-war was anti-American. I DID say that the "volunteers" going to "shield" were doing it over "anti-American" beliefs. In the article I linked they clearly started their anti-American POV... Giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy... is by definition "anti-American". I think it's ALL AMERICAN to be anti-war. Considering the dominance of our military might... we're the most "anti-war" government in history. I'm proud of that tradition and confident these actions won't diminish our reluctance to use force in the future. guitplayer guitplayer

[Salyphus]

I think we should be careful about slinging the term "anti-American" around: remember what happened in the 1950's. I've also never heard anyone defending Saddam, just questioning reasons for attacking him specifically when there are so many other problems in the world of equal or greater danger.

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Sal ©: [b] I've also never heard anyone defending Saddam, just questioning reasons for attacking him specifically when there are so many other problems in the world of equal or greater danger.[/b][/quote]OK, I'll bite. Let's consider other "worthy" concerns of equal or greater danger. How creating about a short list of dangerous nations. - Let's start with other countries that have invaded one or more of their neighbors militarily within the last 20 years. - That is also developing, but doesn't yet have nuclear weapons... because once they do, the cost of removing them is a LOT higher. - That has ACTUALLY USED chemical weapons against its enemys and its own people within the last 20 years. - That is poised next to one of the most important economic lifelines for the western world. - That is run by a brutal totalitarian government which allows NO opportunity for peaceful change to remove the leadership in the forseeable future. How many countries fit THAT criteria? guitplayer

[rickpowell]

Sung to the tune of "Strawberry Fields"... Let me take you down cause I'm goin to Iraqi Shields Death to Is-real And waitin' to get shot about Iraqi Shields forever Dying is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see It's getting hard to be a shield but it all works out, life doesn't matter much to me Let me take you down cause I'm goin to Iraqi Shields Death to Is-real And waitin' to get shot about Iraqi Shields forever Saddam thinks I'm in his tree, I think he's hiding high or low That is you can't you know shield him but it's all right, that is I think I'm a dead duck Let me take you down cause I'm goin to Iraqi Shields Death to Is-real And waitin' to get shot about Iraqi Shields forever Always, no sometimes, aim for me, but you know I hope that it's a dream I think I know I hope that Bush is all wrong, And the UN inspections come up emp-ty Let me take you down cause I'm goin to Iraqi Shields Death to Is-real And waitin' to get shot about Iraqi Shields forever Iraqi Shields forever Iraqi Shields forever RP Apologies to John.

[KenElevenShadows]

[quote]Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: And what about other nations weaponry? (Israel, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, France, UK, USA, North Korea, and probably a whole bunch of others). [/QB][/quote]Oh, crud, you're right! We gotta bomb these guys, too!! :D

[KenElevenShadows]

guitplayer and others, There are some really good points here. I doubt there's many here in this forum who feel that Saddam Hussein shouldn't be stopped in some way - although last time I wrote this, I was flamed, so go figure . The debate instead seems to center around HOW to do succeessfully stop Hussein. Some feel that war is necessary. Others aren't sure. Others want to wait for a more complete inspection. Some favor sanctions. Others favor exiling the ruler. Some favor other non-military methods. There is obviously a huge anti-war sentiment both in the United States, as evidenced by 200,000 people protesting the war in Wash DC and huge protests in many other major cities, a majority of WWII veterans feeling that this war is a bad idea, and an NPR poll indicating that 70% of the population in the U.S. feels that any invasion should be put off until to allow more times for U.N. weapons inspectors. I doubt that these people are questioning whether we should stop Hussein, but instead, HOW it should be done. I would also agree with the sentiment that if someone is anti-war, or at least hesitant about it, they are not necessarily "anti-American" or "unpatriotic".

[Fender Bender_dup1]

Bomb and be damned ..Bush foreign policy I blame Daddy Bush ...couldnt finish the job in 91..incited the Hussain opposition in Iraq and looked on as they burned. Plus we have the illegal 35 year occupation of the West Bank , Gaza & the Golan Heights by the peace loving children of Israel. Who continue to ignore the UN and build jewish settlements on Arab land ..paid for buy Uncle Sams loan gaurantee's.....Sharon wants 14$b this year..that 14$b of your tax dollars propping up a rogue racist state. As far as human shields go ...Idiots I agree But I dont trust pretzeldent Bush! :confused: