|Can't Find Good Help Anywhere!!!||Alpedhuez55|
Mar 3, 2003 4:25 PM
|It looks like most of the human shields have given it up already.
They actually thought they would have some choice in where they could go. Why would Iraq need human sheilds for Hospitals. They know those will not be bombed. They are going to send them to places that will be the first to be bombed like oil refineries, power plants and Amo dumps. It would have made tageting easy, just look for building with the hippies in the front ;)
At least the head of Sweden's largest peace organization saw the actions for what it was: "To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong."
|I guess that proves they aren't Saddam sympathizers.||czardonic|
Mar 3, 2003 4:29 PM
|Looks like they stuck to their humanitarian principles.|
Mar 4, 2003 2:28 AM
|Hahahaha...excuse me while I get back on my chair from laughing so hard...
Nice try at twisting into something altruistic (1) their cowardice in the face of real danger and (2)their ignorance and absence of thought about what they were actually supporting in advance. Czar, you're a living lesson in liberal propaganda. Thank you for providing me with an up close and personal look into the heart of the beast!
The fact is they were so blinded by their hatred of GWB et al that they couldn't see the cornucopia of very obvious signs that Saddam Hussein is one of the most dangerous and heinous dictators since Stalin. It's nice to see that the regime is so bad that the when finally confronted face to face, it was obvious enough to cut through even their thick fog of liberal thought.
If you want to see real moral courage and convictions represented for you, watch "Band of Brothers". Those soldiers of WWII, and those in the US and British forces today, are bona fide heroes and humanitarians. Men and women who are willing to face certain danger and possible death for a worthy cause, namely our freedom and liberation of other peoples from tyranny, are the ones who deserve our repect and grateful thanks, not a bunch of empty-headed peaceniks who don't even understand the causes they support.
These other people are so deluded I'm sure they would have been volunteering to go act as human shields for Castro during the missile crisis if they had lived at the time.
|I guess blowing people up is one way of liberating them.||czardonic|
Mar 4, 2003 11:37 AM
|Thanks for setting me straight on the absolute and only definition of humanitarianism.|
|Not sure how that relates...||VertAddict|
Mar 4, 2003 5:38 PM
|"I guess blowing people up is one way of liberating them" - I know this is meant to be a statement of ridiculousness, but the fact is that blowing up hostile combatants and infrastructure can be a critical step in liberating people. What did we do with Germany specifically and Europe generally in WWII? Do you think the people of Germany and Europe would rather they were still living under the Nazis (the select few that would still be alive at all)? No? Dang, but we had to blow up people and things to liberate them.
Hmm, maybe that's not so ridiculous after all. Oh, wait, there's South Korea, Japan, the Phillipines and Afghanistan to name a few more examples of people that are more free and better off today as a result of America's willingness to fight for a cause that was just and yes, blow up some local combatants.
It would be nice if all conflicts could be resolved peacefully, but you only have to look to Neville Chaimberlain to know that's often not true, no matter how badly you want it to be. Megalomaniac dictators have the nasty habit of not seeing things your way.
I never said my example was the only kind of humanitarianism - see eyebob's hospital worker idea below for an excellent idea on how these people could have made themselves genuinely useful to someone (besides Saddam Hussein). However, given how this all played out, I find it very difficult to believe they were ever bent on anything but making a spectacle of themselves and their enormous hatred of American foriegn policy. And no, that doesn't fall under my definition of humanitarian.
|Please. You'd condemn them if they volunteered at hospitals.||czardonic|
Mar 4, 2003 5:54 PM
|"Nice try at twisting into something altruistic (1) their cowardice in the face of real danger and (2)their ignorance and absence of thought about what they were actually supporting in advance. Czar, you're a living lesson in liberal propaganda. Thank you for providing me with an up close and personal look into the heart of the beast!"
It's clear from this statement that you consider any attempt to protect innocent lives in Iraq as ignorant support of Saddam Hussein. Why is it okay with you if people volunteer in hopitals to clean up the carnage, but not okay if they go there to discourage it from happening in the first place?
Wait! Never mind. You beleive that carpet-bombing = liberty for the oppressed. Just like it did in Vietnam? Just like it was necessary to win the Cold War??
Again, these people went to Iraq in hopes of ensuring all the more that US bombs would be steered clear of civilians. When it became clear to them that they would only be useful to Saddam, they left.
|Czar, czar. You always generalize (deliberate generalization)||VertAddict|
Mar 5, 2003 12:09 AM
|Czar, I enjoy the debate, but please stop taking examples I give and restating them as if I made them as a general statement.
I think I indicated clearly enough that there are cases where liberation has been won with the business end of a gun. That I believe is an undeniable fact, even for you (see the examples I gave). However, I certainly did not say that this is always the case, nor that any time someone shoots or bombs someone it creates liberty for the oppressed. Is your argument so weak the only way it can stand is by misrepresenting mine?
It seems that you would like to believe that there never has been nor ever will be a situation where use of force is honorable and just. History in no way supports this point of view, again as I pointed out through historical anecdotes. As a student of history and a realist, I believe that occasionally you may have to resort to violence as a last option to bring about justice.
Again, your generalizations are frustrating in that someone reading your post out of context would completely misconstrue my argument, but as I said, perhaps that is your goal. I freely acknowledge that history is also full of examples such as Vietnam where a very high human cost was paid for a questionable outcome. I'm just not narrow-minded enough to generalize that this means that is always the case.
The question of whether these people's behaviour was treasonous was already discussed on the board, but certainly the consensus seemed to be that while it didn't cross that line, it was dancing dangerously close to it. It's been said often enough, if these people were really concerned about Iraqi citizens, they could try to do something to save some of the many ethnic groups and political targets that Saddam persecutes within his own country. I promise you that by the time this is done, Saddam will have killed 10 times more Iraqi non-combatants than GWB ever will.
|Maybe <i>I</i> miscontrued your argument.||czardonic|
Mar 5, 2003 11:22 AM
|I really, honestly don't see what your problem is with these human sheild characters. They went to Iraq out of concern for the same Iraqi people that Bush claims to be intent on liberating. When they found out that they would be exploited for Saddams purposes, they left. If these people were in anyway interested in helping Saddam, they'd still be there. No?
As far as war, I certainly never said "there never has been nor ever will be a situation where use of force is honorable and just." Nonetheless, I will say that use of force is never the best option, and should always be the last resort.
Saddam is an evil person, and I'd like to see him out of power and preferably either in prison or dead just as much as anyone. Unfortunately, he has several million hostages and the means to kill them. It makes no sense to send hundreds of thousands of troops against one nut and a few dozen loyalists. Innocent people will be killed, many by us, more, as you say, by him. Americans will also die. In the last Gulf War we killed twice as many of our troops as Iraq did.
|Maybe <i>I</i> miscontrued your argument.||Alpedhuez55|
Mar 5, 2003 6:23 PM
|I would much rather see Saddam go into Exile without a bomb being dropped too. I do not want war but feel it is just in this cause. But the inspections only work with disclosure and have failed for 12 years.
One of the stories lost in the shuffles yesterday was one of more talk from Arab Nations about putting pressure to get him into exile. It is a longshot, but it is the best solution for everyone. Though the latest news on the Arab League meeting was not as good and involved calling people Monkeys:
This was somewhat good news in there though. The US should not be the first response to all the trouble in the world. It is nice to see some of the nations in the Middle East suggest a solution. Just like I think it would be nice to see Russia and China more involved in the Korea situation. I think that is a good strategy to take internationally.
As for the human sheilds, I think they were more of a joke than anything else. They were just going to be used when they went down there. And I fee when they try to interfere with troops, they are the same as combatants. You know military is not targeting Hospitals & schools. Though they may feel their cause is good, they were misguided and were being used. I think they hurt their cause more than they helped.
|Question: <i>How</i> have inspections failed, exactly?||czardonic|
Mar 5, 2003 7:19 PM
|Saddam is no more a threat today than he was 12 years ago. The only thing has changed is the American publics willingness to be goaded into war by paranoid "what if" arguments.
For example, consider Powell's post 9/11 statement to the New York Times: "Iraq isn't going anywhere. It's in a fairly weakened state. It's doing some things we don't like. We'll continue to contain it. But there really was no need at this point, unless there was really quite a smoking gun, to put Iraq at the top of the list." Now, of course, he is convinced that we don't need a smoking gun pretext because of the theoretical possibility of a future smoking gun. Yet, his growing paranoia has no basis in actual events, because the only change has been an increased (even if not total) cooperation from Saddam with the UN.
Sadly, I think that you subscribe to a "no skin off my nose" attitude towards war. You're willing to condemn faceless others to death and deprivation, knowing full well that you will never be caught in the crossfire. There's no chance that Iraqi bombers are going to darken the sky over your home, so why not take the "risk". If it goes great, great. If it results in neighborhoods leveled and families obliterated, it won't be your neighborhood or your family.
Bottom line, it is immoral to fight a war when the result is a forgone conclusion, because such a war is unneccessary. We are perfectly capable of settling this with neither force, nor Saddam's cooperation. It is just a matter of commiting the time and resources to do so. Instead, you are advocating the "quick and dirty" approach.
|Question: <i>How</i> have inspections failed, exactly?||Alpedhuez55|
Mar 6, 2003 8:57 AM
|Well, the ispections have failed for 12 years. THere is lack of cooperation. This is not a game of hide and seek. He is not identifying his weapons. WHile they may have found 120 missles, what about the other 280 of them he is known to have had.
As I said, a couple of posts ago, we already had this debate. You can go archives if you want more details on inspections and terrorist links. THere is a threat to the US. We already had this dicussion and we disagree strongly on it.
You are also still implying that "neighborhoods" are the target. THe targets are military and industrial. We are not dropping Daisy cutters into residental areas. The bomgings and attacks will be made with an effort to keep the infastructure of Iraq in tact for the next regime.
I guerss we have to agree to disagree. I think it is immoral to allow a Despot like this to oppress and kill his own people. If Saddam made real attempts to respond to diplomacy, I would agree with you. He has not made more than a diversionary effort. I think the war is just and history will prove you wrong.
|I guess you can afford the bliss of ignorance.||czardonic|
Mar 6, 2003 11:04 AM
|As I said, it is easy to come to the conclusion that war and its inevitable innocent casualties are a regretable necessity when you're safety is guarunteed. It doesn't matter whether or not neighborhoods are targeted. War is chaotic, and civilians will be caught in the crossfire or hit by accident. In a country where nearly half of the population is under the age of 14, it takes and especially potent case of either cruelty or denial to sign off on a large scale invasion.
I wonder what your definition of "morality" really is, when you think it is immoral to pursue alternate means of deposing Saddam, but have no problem appeasing an even more oppressive, murderous and dangerous dictator in North Korea.
If you don't want to have this conversation again, fine. I imagine it gets rather tiring defending the same old transparent rationalizations. If you prefer the safety of a closed mind, you are welcome to it.
|I guess you can afford the bliss of ignorance.||Alpedhuez55|
Mar 6, 2003 12:54 PM
|What I did not wish to discuss was the point of the inspections working or not. I think we have talked about that point to death.
Sure about 42% of the population is under 14. THe US is part responsible for supporting Saddam in his war 80s. There is a lost generation in Iraq. Hopefully this war will make sure that 42% does not have to fight another war.
THere will more than likely be civilian casualties as well as US lives lost in friendly fire. But how many lives has Saddam been responsible for taking? It is in the 7 figures. And what about those who starved while Saddam looted the food for oil program? How many more lives do we let him take?
North Korea is a seperate issue. We do not stop looking for the #2 on the most wanted list because # 1 is at large and that situation is not being ignored. I think it is a mistake to resume any oil or food aid to them without human rights and economic reforms. That situation is not easy either. I do not think he should be appeased either. But I do not think war or troop build up is the answer there at the moment.
War is not a good thing, but sometimes it is needed. Saddam is right up there with Pol Pot & Hitler. The US and allies will go in and do their best to protect civilians. THey are stockpiling food, blankets & other such items in Kuwait to make sure the people are fed & sheltered. I do not think Bush will make the mistakes his father and the UN made in 1991.
|Six of one, half dozen of the other.||czardonic|
Mar 6, 2003 1:17 PM
|"Hopefully this war will make sure that 42% does not have to fight another war."
Doesn't this basically traslate to actively promoting one war in order to reduce the possibility of another one? I can't make sense of that.
Obviously, we let him take as few lives as possible. The no-fly zones in the north and south have effectively leashed his genocidal ambitions for more than a decade. As I said earlier, he has several million hostages and the means and mentality to kill them. Kicking in the door with guns blazing may not be the best approach.
|Six of one, half dozen of the other.||Alpedhuez55|
Mar 6, 2003 3:54 PM
|Once again, you are expecting the worst to happen. I also think you are over estamating the loyalty of Saddam's Forces. Do you really thing his soldiers are just going to open fire on civilians on his orders? Or will he use the WMD that the inspectors cannot find? If he has the means and mentality to take out his own people, it is all the more reason to take him out.
The no fly zones have slowed, but not stopped the genocidal ambitions. A war will end them within days.
|Not expecting the worst, just acknowledging risk.||czardonic|
Mar 6, 2003 4:05 PM
|You have clearly bought into the sunny, "dancing in the streets" fantasies of hawks who are anxious for war at any cost and realize that Americans will more likely support it if they are given a best case scenario to cling to.
The Iraqi people don't like Saddam. But neither do they like us, because we have betrayed them repeatedly. Check this out, if you are interested in the views of someone who has been to Iraq and talked to the people as opposed to Administration officials who who have only travelled there to buddy up with Saddam: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030303&s=scahill
|Not expecting the worst, just acknowledging risk.||Alpedhuez55|
Mar 6, 2003 7:59 PM
|I read the article. There are sad storys like that child. I am sure you can find them in the hundreds of thousands Kurds he killed. I have read plenty of accounts of Saddam's torture of political prisoners.
Of course there are risks. I think they are smaller much than you would have people beleive. But it is clear that what the mistakes made in the US & UN made in 1991 will not happen here. There will be a regime change. We will not leave the opposition forces to be slaughtered. They will be brought into the new government.
|The irony is that if the protesters would stay at the "assigned"||eyebob|
Mar 4, 2003 11:03 AM
|sites, they may have more of an impact. Then, when the campaign starts, knowing that there are innocents acting as "shields" at the military targets the U.S. would have to make the decision to destroy with that knowledge at hand, which IMHO they would do anyway. Seems to me that the "shields" are guilty of either being unclear on their purpose or just cowards. If they wanted to go down and act as shields for a hospital, why not just volunteer with a relief agency? If they wanted to try to stop bombs then willfully stay at a known military target.
|The irony is that if the protesters would stay at the "assigned"||Alpedhuez55|
Mar 4, 2003 12:01 PM
|Well, these "Volunteers" in my opinion become combatants. If a war were to break are troops supposed to endanger their own lives to protect a human shield? I don't think they should. If the shields get killed, it is their own fault. THere is a huge difference between protesting a war in their home country and providing the aid to an enemy country.
THey were trying to imply that the US would target places like Schools and Hospitals. The military would not bomb these places. THen the sheilds take credit for the US not bombing them. In reality, they went down and were being used by Saddam as tools of propaganda.
You are right BT, volunteer for a relief agency is a better way to get what they want done. Or if they want to be more effective, why don't they try to urge Saddam to disarm while they are there. THat would show true courage.