See that would be a great idea. But when they got to Iraq instead of saying "Show us where to sit" to the nearest Iraqi officer they should start hand out pamflets against Saddam, go to the palaces and sites that are assumed having WoMD and sniff around. And always in groups of 100.000. Lets see how Saddam would react to that behaviour among his guests. I don´t think it takes more than 1/2 mill. to start a revolution. And US wouldn´t dare attack as long as 1/2 mill. western people were in Baghdad doing anti-saddam propaganda.
It would be even better if it was iraqis who did this and the only thing against it would be the huge loss of lifes that it would result in.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good idea. Problem is is that would be a real anti-war movement and the "anti-war" movement isn't about stopping war but about bashing the US.
<strong>Off you go Bunge, you must protect Saddam and his regime now. as someone else stated , it wouldn't be murder, but suicide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, someone did state that it would be suicide not murder. But does that make it true? No. I can state that it's a grapefruit, but that doesn't make it true either.
In a war, not all targets are legitimate. Sorry. You can't just flatten the entire country simple because that's the only way to be sure you've killed all the 'evil doers.' You actually have to be discerning. They actually have international lawyers in the military planning rooms to sort out what is or isn't a legitimate target. You can't just destroy everything.
And how am I protecting Saddam and his regime? I don't think I mentioned them at all.
We shold probably point out that these people aren't sitting at military installations, but at places like schools and mosques. These aren't typical military targets anyway. However, in the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban tried to hide weapons and troops in these places because they knew that bombing it would be great PR for them, claiming it had families inside instead. So I think the military forces will keep an eye on those types of places to see who is actually moving into them.
I wonder what the human shields would do if Iraq tried to stuff a few tanks and troops into their mosque with them?
Also, I wonder how safe they could possibly be if urban warfare breaks out in Baghdad. What are the chances Iraqi troops will use them as their own personal human shields, like what happened with kids and civilians in Mogadishu?
scott...i am assuming you mean the anti-war movement around the world, not the anti-war movement in the US...everyone i have met on marches loves this country, i know i sure do...best country in the world...g
as for the anti-war movement in other countries? i really don't know them, but i assume some of them have various reasons...some even are anti-us, but i am equally sure not all are...
human shields...stupid idea, more lives lost is bad...if the idiots are there, hopefully they stay at hospitals and schools...they are still likely to get killed, but hopefully less so since our bombs are so smart now adays....g
<strong> "anti-war" movement isn't about stopping war but about bashing the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The people that are bashing the US are the current administration . . . Ashcroft and his anti-Constitutional security measures, Bush and his economy for the top elite, his environmental policy committees headed not by scientists but by auto-industry approved spokesmen... etc etc
a real measure of good leadership is the moral of those being governed . . . and we clearly are in the shiiter.... black cloud of despair and enmity from even our once close allies
Bunge, I'm not a rabid war-mongering zealot who gets his jollies by the prospect of smiting my enemies but if someone chooses to go to Iraq and then chooses to stand around some military or civilian sites why would believe that some military planner would know that they are are there, or even care.
If they believe that this action would prevent war they would be actually shielding Saddam and his regime, there is not going to be carpet bombing of civilians, or flattening an entire country. P.S I have a close relative out there who has been frantically preparing for Saddams NBC ( no, not the network) actions so they really are convinced he has some serious shit hidden and ready to go. Peace brother.
Revolution in Iraq would be the bloodiest of all scenarios without a doubt. If we care about Iraqi civilians as a world, and we don't, we wouldn't have treated them the way we have for the last 12 years.
If the forthcoming war kills over 500,000 of them like the sanctions did up to 1996 alone (I don't even know what the toll has been with 7 more years) I'll gladly eat my words, but until then, and as crazy as it sounds, I think the most humane thing to do is undertake a war with a clear goal of minimizing civilian casualties to oust Saddam Hussein and his regime and get the sanctions against the people (because that's who they are against) lifted.
<strong>scott...i am assuming you mean the anti-war movement around the world, not the anti-war movement in the US...everyone i have met on marches loves this country, i know i sure do...best country in the world...g
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those folks are easy to spot -- they're the ones marching with big signs. They're all out there because they love America so much. It's just the folks who are organizing the marches (such as the World Workers' Party) that hate America. Let's keep that clear.
Big difference. Organizers/sponsors/media -- trying to undermine America. Ordinary folks -- not trying to undermine America by marching in protest. Ordinary folks DON'T MEAN TO (this is important) support Saddam Hussein, they just don't want war. Or Bush, or SUVs, or whatever CNN tells them to not want.
The people who say that the protestors "hate America" or are "pro-Saddam" are off-base. The vast majority of these protesters are merely anti-Bush. They griped a bit when Clinton dropped bombs on Iraqis, but they'll come out 1 million strong when a Republican threatens to do it.
The people that are bashing the US are the current administration . . . Ashcroft and his anti-Constitutional security measures, Bush and his economy for the top elite, his environmental policy committees headed not by scientists but by auto-industry approved spokesmen... etc etc
a real measure of good leadership is the moral of those being governed . . . and we clearly are in the shiiter.... black cloud of despair and enmity from even our once close allies
wake up people!!!.... this admin is nightmare!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wish I could switch over to the doe-eyed Left and write that kind of stuff. That sounds so much more fun than just continuing to point out how much DRIVEL it is.
Sniff. You're right, they're a NIGHTMARE. Turn back to CNN and the networks, they'll confirm your suspicions and help you formulate a new gestalt when (or if) that one wears thin.
I hate to seem so negative, but I'm surprised at how f*cking gullible people are. And how intellectually lazy they are as well.
<strong>I heard on El Jezira that Saddam was ready to make him self an human shield. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, he will act as a human shield to his N/B/C weapons because no one can find them, so they won't find him either.
I wish I could switch over to the doe-eyed Left and write that kind of stuff. That sounds so much more fun than just continuing to point out how much DRIVEL it is.
Sniff. You're right, they're a NIGHTMARE. Turn back to CNN and the networks, they'll confirm your suspicions and help you formulate a new gestalt when (or if) that one wears thin.
I hate to seem so negative, but I'm surprised at how f*cking gullible people are. And how intellectually lazy they are as well.[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>You harp on about CNN and the networks . . . I don't watch either, I don't have cable and only see CNNM when I am travelling and staying at a hotel . . . your ideas about the media are hillarious . . its like a broken (and warped) record . . .
Some decade ago I was in Israel, and there was then one actual occurence of a person acting as a human shield, which made the news at the time.
I don't remember all the exact details. A Palestinian man suddenly started stabbing people in a Jerusalem shopping mall (it was before they discovered what fun it is to blow oneslef up with a crowd of sinners), soon the crowd started to run after him, probably to dispense some form of primitive vengeance. That's when a religious lady, one Mrs. Freund I think, shileded him against the angry mob and thus saved his life. And she was not a ?peace activist? or any kind of political demonstrator, and certainly held no favourable view of the criminal stabber (who was certainly not innocent but not deserving a lynching), she was just a common Israeli civilian with common humane decency.
Now, when these ?antiwar activists? get to Iraq, they are likely to witness the violent death of Iraqi civilians, at the hand the various armed corps of the regime. How many of them will risk their lives to shield them?
That remains to be seen, yet the fact that not one of those ?idealists? took the initiative to ?humanly shield? Iraqi civilians from Saddam's regime all these years, hints at the more likely outcome.
In conclusion, you'll find much self-righteous moralist preaching among those activists, but you'll have to look harder there for that rather common humane decency.
...why would believe that some military planner would know that they are are there, or even care. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you're getting to the point: the military planners DON'T care. That's why the human shields are there. The human shields know that the military planners will kill civilians and by being a human shield they can bring this problem into the open. The fact that it's being discussed here is proof that their message is getting out. Good for them.
Besides, I would think that those pushing for war (death/killing/slaughter/explosions) would be proud of someone willing to die for their cause. Seems warped to me that you all will criticize them.
Comments
<strong>
See that would be a great idea. But when they got to Iraq instead of saying "Show us where to sit" to the nearest Iraqi officer they should start hand out pamflets against Saddam, go to the palaces and sites that are assumed having WoMD and sniff around. And always in groups of 100.000. Lets see how Saddam would react to that behaviour among his guests. I don´t think it takes more than 1/2 mill. to start a revolution. And US wouldn´t dare attack as long as 1/2 mill. western people were in Baghdad doing anti-saddam propaganda.
It would be even better if it was iraqis who did this and the only thing against it would be the huge loss of lifes that it would result in.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good idea. Problem is is that would be a real anti-war movement and the "anti-war" movement isn't about stopping war but about bashing the US.
<strong>Off you go Bunge, you must protect Saddam and his regime now. as someone else stated , it wouldn't be murder, but suicide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, someone did state that it would be suicide not murder. But does that make it true? No. I can state that it's a grapefruit, but that doesn't make it true either.
In a war, not all targets are legitimate. Sorry. You can't just flatten the entire country simple because that's the only way to be sure you've killed all the 'evil doers.' You actually have to be discerning. They actually have international lawyers in the military planning rooms to sort out what is or isn't a legitimate target. You can't just destroy everything.
And how am I protecting Saddam and his regime? I don't think I mentioned them at all.
<strong>
...the "anti-war" movement isn't about stopping war but about bashing the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You still can make crap up without even thinking about it. You probably don't even realize it anymore when you are making crap up.
I wonder what the human shields would do if Iraq tried to stuff a few tanks and troops into their mosque with them?
Also, I wonder how safe they could possibly be if urban warfare breaks out in Baghdad. What are the chances Iraqi troops will use them as their own personal human shields, like what happened with kids and civilians in Mogadishu?
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
as for the anti-war movement in other countries? i really don't know them, but i assume some of them have various reasons...some even are anti-us, but i am equally sure not all are...
human shields...stupid idea, more lives lost is bad...if the idiots are there, hopefully they stay at hospitals and schools...they are still likely to get killed, but hopefully less so since our bombs are so smart now adays....g
<strong>Lets see how Saddam would react to that behaviour among his guests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hussein would slaughter them, or rather, they would mysteriously disappear.
<strong> "anti-war" movement isn't about stopping war but about bashing the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The people that are bashing the US are the current administration . . . Ashcroft and his anti-Constitutional security measures, Bush and his economy for the top elite, his environmental policy committees headed not by scientists but by auto-industry approved spokesmen... etc etc
a real measure of good leadership is the moral of those being governed . . . and we clearly are in the shiiter.... black cloud of despair and enmity from even our once close allies
wake up people!!!.... this admin is nightmare!!!
If they believe that this action would prevent war they would be actually shielding Saddam and his regime, there is not going to be carpet bombing of civilians, or flattening an entire country. P.S I have a close relative out there who has been frantically preparing for Saddams NBC ( no, not the network) actions so they really are convinced he has some serious shit hidden and ready to go. Peace brother.
Revolution in Iraq would be the bloodiest of all scenarios without a doubt. If we care about Iraqi civilians as a world, and we don't, we wouldn't have treated them the way we have for the last 12 years.
If the forthcoming war kills over 500,000 of them like the sanctions did up to 1996 alone (I don't even know what the toll has been with 7 more years) I'll gladly eat my words, but until then, and as crazy as it sounds, I think the most humane thing to do is undertake a war with a clear goal of minimizing civilian casualties to oust Saddam Hussein and his regime and get the sanctions against the people (because that's who they are against) lifted.
<strong>scott...i am assuming you mean the anti-war movement around the world, not the anti-war movement in the US...everyone i have met on marches loves this country, i know i sure do...best country in the world...g
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those folks are easy to spot -- they're the ones marching with big signs. They're all out there because they love America so much. It's just the folks who are organizing the marches (such as the World Workers' Party) that hate America. Let's keep that clear.
Big difference. Organizers/sponsors/media -- trying to undermine America. Ordinary folks -- not trying to undermine America by marching in protest. Ordinary folks DON'T MEAN TO (this is important) support Saddam Hussein, they just don't want war. Or Bush, or SUVs, or whatever CNN tells them to not want.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
This is all political.
<strong>
The people that are bashing the US are the current administration . . . Ashcroft and his anti-Constitutional security measures, Bush and his economy for the top elite, his environmental policy committees headed not by scientists but by auto-industry approved spokesmen... etc etc
a real measure of good leadership is the moral of those being governed . . . and we clearly are in the shiiter.... black cloud of despair and enmity from even our once close allies
wake up people!!!.... this admin is nightmare!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wish I could switch over to the doe-eyed Left and write that kind of stuff. That sounds so much more fun than just continuing to point out how much DRIVEL it is.
Sniff. You're right, they're a NIGHTMARE. Turn back to CNN and the networks, they'll confirm your suspicions and help you formulate a new gestalt when (or if) that one wears thin.
I hate to seem so negative, but I'm surprised at how f*cking gullible people are. And how intellectually lazy they are as well.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
Perhaps i don't understand very well the arab
<strong>I heard on El Jezira that Saddam was ready to make him self an human shield. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, he will act as a human shield to his N/B/C weapons because no one can find them, so they won't find him either.
<strong>
I wish I could switch over to the doe-eyed Left and write that kind of stuff. That sounds so much more fun than just continuing to point out how much DRIVEL it is.
Sniff. You're right, they're a NIGHTMARE. Turn back to CNN and the networks, they'll confirm your suspicions and help you formulate a new gestalt when (or if) that one wears thin.
I hate to seem so negative, but I'm surprised at how f*cking gullible people are. And how intellectually lazy they are as well.[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>You harp on about CNN and the networks . . . I don't watch either, I don't have cable and only see CNNM when I am travelling and staying at a hotel . . . your ideas about the media are hillarious . . its like a broken (and warped) record . . .
I don't remember all the exact details. A Palestinian man suddenly started stabbing people in a Jerusalem shopping mall (it was before they discovered what fun it is to blow oneslef up with a crowd of sinners), soon the crowd started to run after him, probably to dispense some form of primitive vengeance. That's when a religious lady, one Mrs. Freund I think, shileded him against the angry mob and thus saved his life. And she was not a ?peace activist? or any kind of political demonstrator, and certainly held no favourable view of the criminal stabber (who was certainly not innocent but not deserving a lynching), she was just a common Israeli civilian with common humane decency.
Now, when these ?antiwar activists? get to Iraq, they are likely to witness the violent death of Iraqi civilians, at the hand the various armed corps of the regime. How many of them will risk their lives to shield them?
That remains to be seen, yet the fact that not one of those ?idealists? took the initiative to ?humanly shield? Iraqi civilians from Saddam's regime all these years, hints at the more likely outcome.
In conclusion, you'll find much self-righteous moralist preaching among those activists, but you'll have to look harder there for that rather common humane decency.
<strong>
Organizers/sponsors/media -- trying to undermine America. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your definition of "America" certainly is warped.
<strong>
...why would believe that some military planner would know that they are are there, or even care. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you're getting to the point: the military planners DON'T care. That's why the human shields are there. The human shields know that the military planners will kill civilians and by being a human shield they can bring this problem into the open. The fact that it's being discussed here is proof that their message is getting out. Good for them.
Besides, I would think that those pushing for war (death/killing/slaughter/explosions) would be proud of someone willing to die for their cause. Seems warped to me that you all will criticize them.
<strong>Revolution in Iraq would be the bloodiest of all scenarios without a doubt.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To qoute you, how do you arrive at this conclusion? It would depend on the revolution wouldn't it?
<strong>
To qoute you, how do you arrive at this conclusion? It would depend on the revolution wouldn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, there is a precedence, several times over.