Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
02/26/2003, 13:05:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well, if the war comes, I highly recommend they get out of the way. The human body is rather flimsy and not likely to provide Iraq with all that much protection.
|
Posted by: Jenny ®
02/26/2003, 13:14:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think it is terribly sad that the value of the human shield activist's lives seems to warrant more reflection than the valuable lives of the Iraqi citizens that will die in the bombing campaign. Knowing many high-placed officials of my government will not put forth every effort to avert a war, to explore fully every alternative, devastates me. Every human shield activist death will be a martyr; every Iraqi civilian death will merely be sad.Now my question: Assuming that the human shiels are growing and they will be stationed at different strategic locations in Iraq, what are the options for the military if and when they plan to attack? I don’t think that the presence of the human shield activists will deter any bombs. The activists will be made to seem like a growing cult of loonies, and attempts to discredit them will begin once they start dying. Perhaps there will be some attempts to engage them in reason (go home you sillies, you don’t understand what is going on) but failing getting them to leave, the pro-bomb coalition will continue unfettered.
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/26/2003, 13:35:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
The human shields shouldn't be considered any more important than the Iraqis. If we are willing to kill Iraqi citizens, why stop there? I doubt very much that the presence of these people will slow down our bombing efforts. Indeed, these people will bear more responsibility for their deaths than Iraqi citizens because they have deliberately chosen to be in places that are dangerous, while Iraqi citizens would be likely to avoid such areas.Bush has already stated that Saddam Husayn would be responsible if innocent citizens died (for placing his military in heavily populated areas). It would be just as easy to say the same about these "human shields." The worst part about this effort is that these people will be used as agents by Saddam. He will place them at the places most likely to be bombed, to maximize bad press about the bombings. It is a poor decision to throw away one's life to reflect positively on Saddam Husayn. As I've stated numerous times, I'm against war in Iraq. However, I don't support movements like this one. This group may think their actions will make other countries appreciate the loss of life more (and it may, somewhat). On the other hand, they are essentially protecting Saddam Husayn, a person who merits very little sympathy, IMO. -Dan
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/26/2003, 14:07:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I doubt very much that the presence of these people will slow down our bombing efforts. Indeed, these people will bear more responsibility for their deaths than Iraqi citizens because they have deliberately chosen to be in places that are dangerous, while Iraqi citizens would be likely to avoid such areas."No doubt there are many angles to this issue. One is the publicity it generates and the attention it gets. I saw my first glimpse of it last night on one of the TV network news. It may not amount to much in the eyes of war planners, but what do you think about it? "The worst part about this effort is that these people will be used as agents by Saddam." What do you mean by "agents?" These are volunteers and WANT to be there. It is similar to 'civil disobedience' but to the n-th degree.
"It is a poor decision to throw away one's life to reflect positively on Saddam Husayn. . . . On the other hand, they are essentially protecting Saddam Husayn, a person who merits very little sympathy, IMO." Why can't we say that they are OPPOSING WAR in a much more drastic way than the other 80% of the people on earth? Come to think of it, warmongers probably accuse the rest of us of protecting Saddam!
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/26/2003, 18:54:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
> What do you mean by "agents?" Saddam has already stated that the volunteers will be placed in strategic positions. They have volunteered, but to be his agents. > Why can't we say that they are OPPOSING WAR in a much more
> drastic way than the other 80% of the people on earth? Come
> to think of it, warmongers probably accuse the rest of us of
> protecting Saddam! We could say that, and it would be true. Probably, many of them don't know what to do, and this is their way of expressing themselves. But, what does their opposition amount to? Rather than offer a solution or do something constructive, they put themselves in harm's way with no reasonable purpose. If they literally were "human shields" and could protect the bodies of Iraqi citizens from bullets or missiles, it would be an amazing display of courage. The truth is, however, that in the event of an attack, they simply add themselves to the body count. I wouldn't mind so much, if it weren't for Saddam having stated that the "shields" would be placed at military locations (as they were in the Gulf War). Essentially, they make it harder for the U.S. to fight a "clean" war. Although I don't want war, it may come to that--and if it does, why on earth would I want more people to die (whether they are Iraqis or from some other country)? If we attack, it should be because it's the the right (or smart) thing to do--if we don't, likewise. Whether or not there are some human shields standing in front of a military institution shouldn't be a factor (and I assure you, it won't be). I will blame those who wage war needlessly for the innocent deaths; I wouldn't blame anyone but the "human shields" for theirs, as they have chosen to be in the line of fire. -Dan
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/26/2003, 19:09:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
There are lots of points and questions. But I only try this one. Do you believe in civil disobedience? IMO, the human-shield people have taken that to its limits. And if there is anything good, unselfish, couragous, . . . about civil disobedience, this takes the crown (is there such an expression or I made it up?!)
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/26/2003, 19:29:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
These people are putting their lives on the line to avoid a war. That is the only good I can see in this. But I find their reasoning utterly uncompelling--they will accomplish nothing but to provide Saddam with more political firepower.I do believe in civil disobedience. Perhaps I'm not giving these people enough credit for their courage. I just see their efforts as misdirected. It's not as if they are protecting a good person or a great cause. If war is necessary, I will support it. These people, at that point, will effectively become volunteer POWs. I can't guarantee it, but I hope the U.S. does its best to minimize casualties--and these people will just make it harder to do so. -Dan
|
Posted by: JAK ®
02/26/2003, 15:58:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
Your comment is very good, Dan. I would just add that war is about politics, perceptions, and a kind of morality also. From Saddam Hussein’s perspective, anything which will force the U.S. led forces to kill innocent people will reflect badly on the U.S. Wars kill people. Body counts become important whether they are civilians, shields, or military. Do you remember Viet Nam and the nightly body count and the weekly summary? Just as Hussein will want to maximize “bad press” for the U.S., the U.S. will want to do the same for Hussein. While S.H. deserves no sympathy in my view, Americans, the economy, the cost to the U.S. may not deserve the heavy cost it will undoubtedly incur. “Shields” are not likely to slow bombing. And the Bush administration will do all it can to minimize the reporting of innocent deaths. It will be Saddam’s fault that these people died under U.S. bombs. Why? Because if Saddam had done exactly as the Bush administration ordered, we would not have dropped the bombs. ...somewhat convoluted logic.
JAK
|
Posted by: Martin ®
02/28/2003, 07:20:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
I was very moved by the pleas of at least one of the "human shields" that Saddam literally chained to military targets during the Gulf War. This former hostage warned these pompous, self-righteous idiots of the huge mistake they're making by defending Saddam (and there is no question that's exactly what they're doing, knowingly or otherwise), and that Saddam wouldn't hesitate for an instant to kill or imprison them if it served his purposes.Contrary to JAK's and Jenny's emotionalistic contempt for the U.S. military, administration, and soldiers, I'm confident that -- completely unlike Saddam -- the allied military forces will strive to avoid unduly risking the lives of those sanctimonious, moronic, self-appointed "protectors" of Saddam and his exceptionally vile history of extreme contempt for human life.
- Martin
|
Posted by: Jenny ®
02/28/2003, 11:19:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
“Contrary to JAK's and Jenny's emotionalistic contempt for the U.S. military, administration, and soldiers....”The contempt has nothing to do with the U.S. Military, or the soldiers. Your appeal to emotionalism it deplorable. I don’t think that George Bush wants something “BAD.” But he is going about it in a fashion that will breed discontent, hate, distrust, and further violence. He wants to strong-arm Iraq into a democracy, to pave the way in the region for further democratic processes to flourish. Instead of the slow and tedious process of communication, exploration of options, communication, concessions, communication, acknowledgment, communication, respect, communication, dignity, communication, recognition, communication, realization, Bush is opting for the “our way is right, you’ll thank us later” approach. We are a world of diverse ideas and diverse views. We are one family. It should not be Papa Bush meting out punishment and rewards to his many children. The situation in Iraq did not suddenly pop up, it grew and flourished for years with our sometimes blessing, sometimes hostility. Maybe if “we” quit supplying regimes with weapons “we” won’t have to fight them later. “I'm confident that -- completely unlike Saddam -- the allied military forces will strive to avoid unduly risking the lives of those sanctimonious, moronic, self-appointed "protectors" of Saddam and his exceptionally vile history of extreme contempt for human life.” They are not there to protect Saddam, they are there as a statement in opposition to the Papa Bush mentality, the “our way or the highway” approach to solving problems. They are there as a reminder that every life is precious. They will be a clog in the machine. Would you rather everybody just bow their will at this time and go along with the program; might as well let it be over with and reconstruction start as soon as possible? “For the good of the world everybody just close your eyes and trust us.” The truth is that the “we are right, thank us later” approach will always have tedious clogs, the vision that initiated the action will always get lost somewhere along the way because it is a devilish approach, it is patriarchal and disrespectful. It is not the fault of the clogs, it is the fault of the approach.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/26/2003, 13:51:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I think it is terribly sad that the value of the human shield activist's lives seems to warrant more reflection than the valuable lives of the Iraqi citizens that will die in the bombing campaign."Yes it IS A SAD FACT. But in the abstract and on the surface. If we look more deeply we see a marked difference. Iraqis have been harmed, tortured, killed, . . . by this regime for over 30 years. There have been uprisings and coups in this period but squlched with horeendous consequences for Iraqis. The price of overthrowing such a dictator is usually very high for any nation. If this war takes place, barring any use of WMDs, the outcome could be welcomed by Iraqis with the minimum of casulties. If war does not take place, You and I and most of the world population would be happier, but I am not so sure about Iraqi people.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
02/26/2003, 16:04:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman states (at end):
"If war does not take place, You and I and most of the world population would be happier, but I am not so sure about Iraqi people."For the “Iraqi people” who die, it won’t make much difference. For the surviving relatives, it may depend on how damaged how severe the physical and psychological injury. And it will surely depend on just how many die under the attack.Like you, I am not sure, but war brings surprises, and those surprises will not good for all.
JAK
|
Posted by: Jenny ®
02/26/2003, 16:11:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
I wonder if they will want years and years of foriegn occupation? Would anybody?A couple of questions:
1. When was the last documented time Saddam used WMD?
2. What WMD did he use during the first PG war, and on who?
3. How many of his neighboring countries have WMD?
4. Do we have WMD?
5. Do we have nuclear arms?
6. What country in the world today is most likely to use nuclear arms?
|
Posted by: JAK ®
02/26/2003, 17:39:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
7. What is the only country to have used nuclear weapons? JAK
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/26/2003, 17:53:08
Author Profile Mail author
|
I thought, JAK, that YOU were the recipient of her questions . . . and now to see that you added to the questions?! Alas, everything may end up with surprises!
|
Posted by: Jenny ®
02/26/2003, 17:58:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
Now we need to turn that frown upside down! 1. Where did the Wright Brothers come from?
2. What national park did Yogi Bear reside in?
3. What hospital performed the first sucessful open heart surgery? :)
|
Posted by: grendel ®
02/26/2003, 18:04:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
the UN has mandated that iraq disarm their WMD. there is no UN mandate for the US to do the same.
the argument regarding the fact that the US is the only country to use atomic weapons is weak. do you honestly believe the US is more of a rogue state than iraq? the american use of atomic weapons in WWII and saddam's use of WMD are quite different circumstances. the US used atomic weapons during a world-wide war in which the US was not the primary aggressor. iraq has used WMD on its own people during times of relative peace(relative, that is, to WWII). iraq was the primary aggressor in the gulf war.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
02/26/2003, 20:14:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
grendel,You are quite correct on the U.N. mandate. I added that question because of the nature of Jenny’s questions. That the U.S. is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons is not an argument, it is a fact. For many countries around the world, that fact makes the U.S. a dangerous power. Of course, we in the U.S. do not generally see ourselves as a “dangerous power.” But, if were a smaller, less able, less wealthy, less military country, our perceptions of the nuclear, super-power country would be quite different. Howard Dean’s point on the NewsHour last night was that Iraq does not threaten the U.S. directly and because of that, an attack on Iraq by the U.S. is not morally defensible. And he thinks we have an obligation as the most powerful nation to behave morally. He may be incorrect in that, and you may disagree with his position. Joe Lieberman also interviewed by the NewsHour holds similar views but disagrees on a number of points with Dean. Responding to your question about “rogue state,” there is no question about the answer. Iraq is clearly “more of a rogue state.” And circumstances for WW II were different as you observe. The critical issue now is quite multiplex. Many if not most American politicians have suggest that war should be a “last resort.” That is a terribly difficult question. When have we reached the “last resort”? The U.N. inspectors say that we are not there yet. The longer they are there, the more they may find. And while they are there, it is more difficult for Saddam to pursue much development of weapons of any kind. Bush has a political time-table for himself. How he deals with Iraq and when (from his perspective) must be done in light of Bush objectives beyond Iraq. Your points and questions are good, and I wouldn’t forget them. At the same time, the concerns raised by Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean are important. In what way is the U.S. going to demonstrate leadership? Is a preemptive bombing strike going to place the U.S. in a better position? How long with the U.S. be required to be IN Iraq following some war? And, while this is happening, other things will be going on simultaneously. North Korea is not standing still. They have nuclear weapons now. Should the Bush administration have been more focused on North Korea which has nuclear weapons than on Iraq which likely does not? I do not suggest the answers to these questions are easy. Nor do I post them with the intent to illicit specific answers from you. They are questions for all of us to consider, to ponder.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Feb 26, 2003, 20:20:33
|
|
