Human shields in Iraq.

[Chumpsky]

Observer story (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,866217,00.html) about a delegation of westerners led by a Gulf War I veteran heading to Iraq to act as human shields.

I am guessing that the propaganda apparatus in the U.S. will be unable to spin this appropriately. Iraqi's acting as human shields of air raid shelters are one thing, but American ex-pats acting as human shields of Iraqis is another. Probably it will be studiously ignored by the mass media.

[Koxinga]

Wow, aren't you the newshound. I told you about these fools nearly a month ago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=148379&perpage=50&highlight=chumpsky%20AND%20iraq%20AND%20doghouse&pagenumber=2).

If the "mass media" "studiously ignores" their antics, it's because their clients (the viewers and readers at home) don't care if these idiots get killed or not.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
If the "mass media" "studiously ignores" their antics, it's because their clients (the viewers and readers at home) don't care if these idiots get killed or not. It's a trivial story, to be sure. And it certainly can't compare to stories I saw on the news today, such as a series of interviews with New York City hot dog vendors, an interview with "J. Lo" on her new baby, and other assorted bits of celebrity gossip (and that was just on CNN mind you). Not to mention the copious amounts that are devoted to coverage of sports stories (I wonder what kind of underwear Kobe wears?), business "news," entertainment "news," etc. Perhaps, though, maybe inside one of those little snippets on the front page of USA Today where they have poll results on America's favorite cat names, they could spare some space for this trivial, totally meaningless story.

I doubt though, in the limited space for really important stories, that this story will get much traction.

[Koxinga]

Perhaps you misunderstand me. Probably like most people, I will shed very few tears for idiots whose express purpose is to put themselves in harm's way in a fucking war zone on behalf of a bloody dictator who wouldn't think twice about shooting them if they weren't such useful little idiots. Picking my nose is a more important object of consideration than these guys.

Clear now?

[Liberal]

Chumpsky

What exactly is it that you find "meaningful" about this story?

[Testy]

Is there a debate here? Whether the media will ignore these people maybe? IMHO (which seems to be what you're spouting) the idiots going to Iraq should be ignored by the media. Furthermore, they should also be ignored by the pilots of the ground attack aircraft that wind up bombing the place.

Maybe your point is that there are many idiots in the world. Well, no debate there either.

Bottem line question: What's your point?

Regards.

Testy

[Alessan]

It's my personal experience that humans make lousy shields. They may occasionally stop a 5.56mm or pistol-caliber round, but anything heavier just goes right through them.

[Bluesman]

Originally posted by Alessan
It's my personal experience that humans make lousy shields. They may occasionally stop a 5.56mm or pistol-caliber round, but anything heavier just goes right through them.

Oh, I have to disagree about the 5.56mm thang. That's a HOT round, and you may as well use a turd to shield yourself.

Much as the Iraqis will use these loons mentioned in the OP.

[Mr2001]

I dunno, human shields work pretty well in Dead to Rights. The Iraqis just have to remember to drop each human shield just before his health runs out, and quickly pick up another one.

[Henry B]

If Russian mothers (Mothers of The Russian Solidiers/Mothers against The War-movement) would have lined up in Grosny, would they have been lunatics or heros in Your eyes?

Just asking.

As I read the answers above, it seem to mean that a Iraqi-human life is not worth a shit. And that all others that might be there are lunatics.
Well, send someone from Fox-news there to make a story. Preferably live. Any powerstation or bridge will do.

More seriously. You do not seem to understand the effect this brave guys will do in eg. Europe. Or are they not brave?

I would not have had the guts to stand up at the Tianan-square, so I think these guys are very brave.

[Koxinga]

Apparently, laying down one's life for democracy and freedom, and throwing one's life away in an addled effort to protect a monster like Saddam are morally equivalent exercises.

Oooooooooooookay . . . not much grounds for further dialogue here folks, move along, nothing to see . . .

[Jackmannii]

The idea of sending human shields to Iraq seems superfluous.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by Henry B
Or are they not brave?. Brave, sure. More stupid than brave, though. It's possible to be both.

[Alessan]

Originally posted by Bluesman
Oh, I have to disagree about the 5.56mm thang. That's a HOT round, and you may as well use a turd to shield yourself.

Much as the Iraqis will use these loons mentioned in the OP.

I dunno. While with a 7.62 (NATO or Kalach) it's more or less an in-and-out affair, the 5.56 tends to bounce around a bit inside a body, losing a lot of its energy in the process.

[Testy]

I also believe they are brave. The trouble is that they are also extremely misguided. I understand that they believe they are stopping a war and that is surely a noble goal.

The trouble is that the world is a small place and isolationism just won't work. Sooner or later, it comes down to one side vs the other and these people are actively trying to help the other. That makes them traitors.

Testy

[Henry B]

I can assure You that Saddam Hussein is not even near a electric station nor a birdge if and when there will be a war.
And he does not live in a railwaystation and I can hardly imagine that he never use to be at one.
There are just people, just like me and You. Of course Iraqi ones, maybe they are not so valuable, because we are white ones, the pure ones with the pure ideas, and we can communicate in English. So we have a born right to express our freedom, the freedom of bombing.
And we will be the heros?

Or because the Iraqi people will also be freed, why bomb these places anyhow?
They will just come with flowers and meet us in mass-media within a week or 3 years. Whenever they like to be freed.

And naturally there is nothing worth discussing about the allies in Europe, how they feel about anything, etc.
I do not know the whole Europe but a lot of it anyhow. The last 10 - 20 years the Europeans has been very loose on the boycott-trigger. Never think about that, it is not worth discussing?

[Duck Duck Goose]

Nichols, 33, aims to gather scores of volunteers together in London and lead the convoy on 10 January. It will drive across Europe, holding rallies in various capital cities and collecting other human-shield demonstrators along the way. It plans to travel via Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Zurich, Milan, Sarajevo, Istanbul and Syria to Baghdad. Henry, two words: Children's Crusade.

That didn't end well, either.



http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_crusade


The last 10 - 20 years the Europeans has been very loose on the boycott-trigger. Never think about that, it is not worth discussing?Not in this thread.

[minty green]

Suppose we could get the CIA to slip a targeting device into his backpack? That way, the bombs will be super-accurate, minimizing the possibility of killing the millions of Iraqi citizens who are smart enough to stay the hell away from military targets.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by Henry B
There are just people, just like me and You. Of course Iraqi ones, maybe they are not so valuable, because we are white ones, the pure ones with the pure ideas, and we can communicate in English. So we have a born right to express our freedom, the freedom of bombing.
The Iraqi people of course have been very valuable to Saddam - to send off to die by the hundreds of thousands in wars of conquest (Iran, Kuwait), killed or deported in domestic purges (see this site (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html) for more information).

Whether or not one agrees that a U.S. war in Iraq is justified (and I haven't yet seen the evidence that would justify it), it would take a strange mind-set to conclude that a U.S. invasion could produce a fraction of the death and misery that Saddam has visited on his own people.

[Henry B]

Duck Duck wrote:
Henry, two words: Children's Crusade.

That didn't end well, either.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_crusade

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last 10 - 20 years the Europeans has been very loose on the boycott-trigger. Never think about that, it is not worth discussing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not in this thread.

I want to point out:
- the deaths of some Americans and Europeans and Iraqians is a tragedy.
- Jackmannii is naturally right about Saddam. No question about that.

But the consequences will be totally different if there will be people from other countries involved, if the war is not very well justified.
Killing it's own people is a good reason, but how many countries has not done that? Internal wars is not that is invented the last decades. Even if it always seem to be the dirtiest type of war.

The other consequence will be in trade. I am quite sure about it. (Again, if the war is not very well justified).

That Procter & Gambler has had problems with the washing-powder Ariel is just a very small thing and has hardly any consequences.
Cola-products and hamburger-chains in the Middle East is discussed more about, but I do not think that it will affect "so much" (how ever we define these words?).

But if it begins to affect in Europe, we are not anymore in a situation where only "a few brave/lunatics" will die.
The US economy rocks the world and also rocks back to Europe.
The world is so small nowadays.

And I do not believe that there will be people from only these mentioned countries, and even if so, how can the Europeans from let's say Paris or Sarajevo, be "traitors" as [b[Testy[/b] put it?

Ok. This thread is not about the consequenses, but I think, just to come to the OP, that this human shields will raise a wild discussion in the European massmedia, first wave when the rallies goes through Europe, second wave if there will be a declaration of war, when the people assumable are already in Iraq. Depending again how the possible war is justified.
maybe I am wrong, Europeans are not easy to predict (about the tension in mass-media).

It has not so much to do with Saddam, it is the mind or public opinion in the west they try to bend.

I do not think that the shields will be sold as slaves as it might have happened some 800 years ago in the Children's Crusaide.

Thank You Duck Duck anyhow for the cite.

[Lemur866]

Well, Henry, if Europe decides that Saddam Hussein is more valuable than the friendship of America, then so be it. What, Europe is going to boycott America because a few idiots got themselves killed in the war? I doubt it.

Ultimately for Europe, this is about money and oil. Europe is desperate not to annoy the Arab countries, because the vast majority of oil from the middle east goes to Europe, and because of the large numbers of Muslim immigrants living in Europe. So Europe is supporting the dictators and terrorists, in the hopes of appeasing the Arab world.

Europe, especially France, has been desperate to drop the sanctions against Iraq and get that delicious Iraqi oil. Iraq sells Europe their oil, then turns right around and buys European goods with the money. It's a circle of life thing. End the sanctions, get back to business with Saddam. That's what this is all about.

[Henry B]

Lemurr866
It is not the official Europe I mean. They are very afraid of rocking the boat, as You also mention.
It is the people that are quite easily beginnig to vote with their vallets.
And the people do not see it like a question between friendship with Saddam or America.
As I earlier wrote, if the war is felt like a disaster and the people do not feel that it is justified, they just think about pease and war.
In any case, the critizism will not be against the Americans as people, but the American government. And the goverment will lose a lot with politics that does not convince.

But maybe I hear some other European member's voices.
My opinions is just now most based on what different papers writes in Europe, I have not been able to travel around for some years.
But often the press is reflecting quite well the thoughts of the man on the street, because it daily brainwashes most people. And that goes for any country, but is maybe not the issue here.

[UncleBill]

In the 1991 conflict, Nichols was serving in the 2nd Battalion of the Marine Corps. He was an infantryman on the road to Basra, where heavy Allied bombing killed hundreds of retreating Iraqi soldiers. He left the Marine Corps a year later.

His experience of war left him disillusioned with American foreign policy, and he is now a vociferous opponent of US foreign interventions. 'Part of the reason I want to go back is to apologise to the Iraqi people for what I was doing there the first time I was in their country,' he said.I will perhaps forgive the Guardian Unlimited Observer for their lack of knowledge of US Marine Corps units, and from their text surmise they mean he was part of 2d Marine Division. Be that as it may, the bombing of the road to Basra was in Kuwait, not Iraq, and he had no business being in "their country" unless he, like Saddam, thinks Kuwait is part of Iraq. Marines were in Kuwait, the Army went to Iraq. With VERY few exceptions (like the Tiger Brigade, attached to 2dMarDiv).

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Jackmannii
Whether or not one agrees that a U.S. war in Iraq is justified (and I haven't yet seen the evidence that would justify it), it would take a strange mind-set to conclude that a U.S. invasion could produce a fraction of the death and misery that Saddam has visited on his own people. That's only if you ignore history. In fact, the U.S. has caused far more death and misery in Iraq than Saddam has.

Just for a point of reference:

Number killed in U.S. invasion of Panama: 2,000 - 3,000
Number killed in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait: 240 - 600
Number killed in Gulf War by allied forces: 200,000 - 300,000
Number killed as a result of sanctions: 500,000 - 1,500,000

The U.S. invasion is likely to be devastating, to take a huge toll in human life, to wreck what is left of the infrastructure, and to leave the country in chaos. The new regime will be virtually guaranteed to keep the country impoverished and miserable, while exporting the natural wealth of the country to the west. And then they will move on to the next target.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
Apparently, laying down one's life for democracy and freedom, and throwing one's life away in an addled effort to protect a monster like Saddam are morally equivalent exercises. For your information, the population of Iraq is greater than 1. That is, there are other people who live there beside Saddam, contrary to prevailing opinion. Those who oppose war oppose the killing of those other people. I really don't care if the CIA sponsored killer Saddam Hussein is killed. What I am more concerned with are his victims, those the U.S. is now planning to kill.

[Koxinga]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
That's only if you ignore history. In fact, the U.S. has caused far more death and misery in Iraq than Saddam has.

Just for a point of reference:

Number killed in U.S. invasion of Panama: 2,000 - 3,000
Number killed in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait: 240 - 600
Number killed in Gulf War by allied forces: 200,000 - 300,000
Number killed as a result of sanctions: 500,000 - 1,500,000

The U.S. invasion is likely to be devastating, to take a huge toll in human life, to wreck what is left of the infrastructure, and to leave the country in chaos. The new regime will be virtually guaranteed to keep the country impoverished and miserable, while exporting the natural wealth of the country to the west. And then they will move on to the next target.

I suppose it's futile at this point in your SDMB career to ask you for cites for all these figures and predictions you just pulled out of your ass.

[minty green]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Number killed in Gulf War by allied forces: 200,000 - 300,000The mast majority of those people were Iraqi military personnel. Cry me a freakin' river.
Number killed as a result of sanctions: 500,000 - 1,500,000First, the sanctions were imposed, and have been maintained ever since by the United Nations, not the United States. So go tell it to the rest of the Security Council, eh?

Second, blaming those deaths even on the United Nations is ridiculous. All Saddam ever had to do to end the sanctions was give up his WMD, including his development programs. He has consistently refused to do so, at a very high cost to his people. Hell, Saddam likes the sanctions--he's making a fortune off them.
The new regime will be virtually guaranteed to keep the country impoverished and miserable, while exporting the natural wealth of the country to the west. What the fuck do you want the Iraqis to do with all that oil? Drink it? It ain't doing 'em a lick of good sitting in the ground, whereas the revenue earned from selling it to the rest of the world has the potential to do them one hell of a lot of good.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
I suppose it's futile at this point in your SDMB career to ask you for cites for all these figures and predictions you just pulled out of your ass. These figures are common knowledge. I like the implied ad hominem there, though. It is a common tactic of one who cannot defend a position.

My predictions of what will happen in Iraq are based on the past history of U.S. invasions and interventions. You might want to look at some history, if you can bear to tear yourself away from CNN.

[Michael Ellis]

Chump, you in no position to tell anyone they can't defend their position.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by minty green
First, the sanctions were imposed, and have been maintained ever since by the United Nations, not the United States. So go tell it to the rest of the Security Council, eh?The sanctions are the result of the U.S. If the U.S. were to press for the end of sanctions they would end tomorrow. Most of the world is against the sanctions--only the U.S./U.K. favour them.
Second, blaming those deaths even on the United Nations is ridiculous. All Saddam ever had to do to end the sanctions was give up his WMD, including his development programs. He has consistently refused to do so, at a very high cost to his people. Hell, Saddam likes the sanctions--he's making a fortune off them.This is absolutely not true. In fact, the U.S. has stated that the sanctions will not be lifted until Saddam is out of power, even if Iraq complies fully with U.N. resolutions, which it was doing in 1998. cite (http://beta.metafaq.com/action/answer?id=70560E605521DA513626162339D3239D&ref=286139) Since 1991, the U.S. has consistently maintained that the sanctions cannot be lifted unless Saddam is removed from power. This is typical:

"President Bush said today that the United States would oppose the lifting of the worldwide ban against trading with Iraq until President Saddam Hussein is forced out of power in Baghdad".

("Bush Links End Of Trading Ban To Hussein Exit", The New York Times, 21 May 1991).

This policy thus makes the sanctions terrorism, since they target the civilian population for a political purpose.
What the fuck do you want the Iraqis to do with all that oil? Drink it? It ain't doing 'em a lick of good sitting in the ground, whereas the revenue earned from selling it to the rest of the world has the potential to do them one hell of a lot of good. No shit. But, you see, the west wants the profits from oil to flow to them, and not to the people of Iraq. That is what this war is about. It is not about access to the oil, it is about controlling it.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Number killed in U.S. invasion of Panama: 2,000 - 3,000


Wrong. The total was less than 500 as far as is known, both civilian and military.

Source: Physicians for Human Rights (http://www.phrusa.org/research/health_effects/humojc.html)

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Chump, you in no position to tell anyone they can't defend their position. Sure I am. I present more evidence and more references for my arguments than any single poster on this board. In fact, often in threads I participate in, I present more references than the rest of the participants combined. And, I usually completely demolish opposing arguments.

[Michael Ellis]

You don't "demolish opposing arguments", you flail like a character from a Monty Python routine.

I could drop gallons of cites stating we never landed on the Moon, but that wouldn't make my argument correct.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
These figures are common knowledge. I like the implied ad hominem there, though. It is a common tactic of one who cannot defend a position.

It's also a pretty common tactic used when your opponent persists in making futile arguments after he's destroyed all his credibility by making ludicrous statements.

It also comes in handy when the opponent starts with one premise (the American media will ignore or downplay the actions of these pacifists) and invariably moves back to his favourite standby premise (the United States is the most horrifically destructive creation in the history of the universe).

As for implied ad hominems, I'd be happy to jump straight to direct ad hominems, myself, but GD etiquette requires I refrain. Pity, really. You are so determined to invite ridicule that it seems almost criminally inefficient not to seize the opportunity.





I'm kinda hoping that last line will end up in Teemings

[Michael Ellis]

I am enjoying this. I should post in GD more often.

[Maeglin]

Sure I am. I present more evidence and more references for my arguments than any single poster on this board. In fact, often in threads I participate in, I present more references than the rest of the participants combined. And, I usually completely demolish opposing arguments.

This made my day.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Wrong. The total was less than 500 as far as is known, both civilian and military. That's just totally absurd. Those who claim only a couple hundred dead rely on the U.S. government for their information. Various international organizations, though, place the figure much higher than the professional liars at the State Department. If you really want to see how the U.S. government operates, I recommend the academy award winning documentary Panama Deception (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6302779545/qid=1041280728/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-8254991-9319019?v=glance&s=video&n=507846#product-details).
While the numbers killed are controversial, those who aren't paid, professional liars, or who don't rely on these professional liars for their information, agree that the number is in the thousands. For example, the Central American Human Rights commission [CODEHUCA] studied the invasion and reached the conclusion that,

"Estimates of the number of non- combatants killed run from as few as 2200 to as high as 4000 Many of the mostly black victims were residents of the El Chorrillos slum which was next to the Panamanian military headquarters and was razed to the ground in the attack;" cite (http://www.nowarcollective.com/powellbio.htm)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Sure I am. I present more evidence and more references for my arguments than any single poster on this board. In fact, often in threads I participate in, I present more references than the rest of the participants combined. And, I usually completely demolish opposing arguments.
Change "I" to "Duck Duck Goose" in the first sentence and and "demolish" to "ignore" in the last and you'll be on track.

[minty green]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Most of the world is against the sanctions--only the U.S./U.K. favour them.So, how is it that the other members of the Security Council keep voting for the sanctions, Chumpsky? Did we disqualify their votes due to hanging chads?
Since 1991, the U.S. has consistently maintained that the sanctions cannot be lifted unless Saddam is removed from power. This is typical:

"President Bush said today that the United States would oppose the lifting of the worldwide ban against trading with Iraq until President Saddam Hussein is forced out of power in Baghdad".

("Bush Links End Of Trading Ban To Hussein Exit", The New York Times, 21 May 1991). Ooooh, one off-the-cuff-statement by a guy 11 years ago. Yeah, that proves it's been the "consistent" policy of the U.S. to defy the whole entire rest of the world and keep sanctions on Iraq until they get rid of Saddam. :rolleyes:

[Henry B]

In an interview with Leslie Stahl of CBS on May 11, 1996, U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children killed by the sanctions were "worth it." Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."


Is it still worth it? I just wonder. I do not think the children of Saddam are the victims. And why should they be? The children are innocent, said someone.

[Mojo]

And Chumpsky, Human Rights Watch estimates that the civilian death toll in Panama was around 300 (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/panama/) and they're no fan of the US military. Are they liars or paid off?

[Duck Duck Goose]

The Straight Dope on Panama and casualties seems to be that there is no Straight Dope.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/panama/

It's beside the OP's point, anyway, innit? Let's talk about human shields in Iraq, not Chumpsky's figures and whose anus he may or may not have pulled them out of. And I think we can take it as read that he's not in love with Amerika any more, so when he stands there shouting, "Amerika, that evil bitch, has caused more deaths and misery than Saddam Hussein!" he's hardly telling us anything we don't already know. It was in all the papers, the breakup of the year, Chumpsky and Amerika, it was like Tom and Nicole.

[Michael Ellis]

I cite Physicians for Human Rights, Chump cites the Nowar Collective. Any questions?

[Duck Duck Goose]

Interesting, that we read the same cite and I heard it say that there were no real answers, and you heard it say that there were 300 casualties.

[Michael Ellis]

I didn't say that, I said "less than 500, as far as is known." Which means I didn't know, but was making a guess based on what I read.

[Michael Ellis]

And it wasn't even the same site, either.

[Mojo]

I think DDG was referring to me- I realize the gist of the article was that they don't have a firm grasp on the number, although I caught this part:
These figures appear to indicate, therefore, that at least 280 to 305 civilians, and possibly more, died in Panama, which is very near our estimate of 300, and about 50 percent higher than the Pentagon originally claimed.17
and made sure I used the word estimated.

[UncleBill]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
[B... but American ex-pats acting as human shields of Iraqis is another. Probably it will be studiously ignored by the mass media. [/B]According to his ramblings here (http://www.uksociety.org/) (scroll down left panel to "United States of Hipocrisy". He is not an American ex-pat, he is not an American at all. He renounced his citizenship and burned his passport and an American Flag, and declared himself a "World Citizen" on July 1, 2002, and no longer subject to US Law. He has a bench warrants out for his arrest in Hawaii, for actions trying to overthrow the US Government in Hawaii. He says I vehemently reject the so-called "privileges", "protections", and enjoyment of "civil rights" of the United States.He says he was with 2dBn, 4th Marines, which was attached to the 8th Marine Regiment. The 8th Marines were on the right of our 2d Mar Div sector, as I recall. He may have seen the destruction on a sight seeing tour, but did not witness it firsthand. The Tiger Brigade held the high ground overlooking that area, which was to my left, as I was in the center of the 2nd Mar Div area.

Bomb his ass.

[Michael Ellis]

Oh, all right then, carry on.

[Henry B]

Cites, so far:
Chumsky 4 cites
Doghouse Reilly 1 cite
Jackmannii 1 cite
Duck Duck 1 cite
Michael Ellis 1 cite

So there You see Chumsky! You only gave us 4 cites, and we gave You 4.
Not more than we together!!!!

I try to find a cite somewhere and we are in the lead, and Chumpsky is left in the shame!!!!

And tomorrow I give You all points. Stay tuned.





Btw. if someone needs cites about his/her own country's history, I suggest a library.

[Henry B]

While writing the last, we got more cites!

[Jackmannii]

Chumpsky, on his reputation for veracity: "I present more evidence and more references for my arguments than any single poster on this board".

Chumpsky, when challenged to support his casualty figures, some of which have absolutely nothing to do with his OP: "These figures are common knowledge."

Congrats, Chumpsky. Keep up the good work.


If there's one thing the new round of weapons inspections has accomplished, it's to draw attention to the amazing and revolting degree to which Saddam has enriched and aggrandized himself while starving his people. You may wish to review the recent N.Y. Times feature on his many opulent palaces, built with funds that could have provided needed food and medical supplies for his people. You might also consider how many lives would have been saved if he had foregone his megalomaniacal dreams and complied with sanctions. You could think about how many lives have been spared in neighboring countries due to sanctions inhibiting his ability to make war on his neighbors.

Thought, however, takes effort.



"It was in all the papers, the breakup of the year, Chumpsky and Amerika, it was like Tom and Nicole." :D

[El_Kabong]

I'm fairly sure that those who propose shipping themselves off to Iraq as voluntary human shields see themselves as helping the Iraqi people, not Saddam. I'm sympathetic to that notion, and good luck to 'em, although I still have to say that they are at least tacitly supporting Saddam by doing such, and Saddam is no one I would care to support even by implication. I'll stop well short, however, of considering them 'traitors', as some have implied in this thread.

Minor hijack:

I'd appreciate it if our esteemed Chumpsky would straighten us out on some of the figures he posted to this thread. I'm willing to buy the CODEHUCA fiqures on Panama as being just as plausible as any of the lower figures cited by other posters, but I need to hear the straight story on the reduced number of dead in Iraq.

In a previous thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2750257#post2750257), Chumpsky stated in so many words that sanctions in Iraq have killed "more than two million" since 1990, and he never backed off from this figure despite much rebuttal. Now, in this thread, we hear:


Number killed as a result of sanctions: 500,000 - 1,500,000


Personally, I find it repugnant that anyone at all might have died directly due to the sanctions, but I'm getting a bit confused over the variability of these numbers. So I like to ask the referenced poster which figures he believes are correct: "more than 2 million" or "500,000-1.5 million"? Also, why the change?

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

I would like to request that all American human shields please verify what they are shielding before they handcuff or tie themselves or whatever to the particular target to make sure they arent guarding some empty building or mosque and that they please send a clear radio signal so that all american forces can ...uhh spot them and be aware of their presense... and take ..uhhh appropriate action... :)

[djbdjb]

Is anybody like me, in that they would feel better about wars against dictators with WMD if the U.S. had a policy of allowing people to freely immigrate out of horrible countries? That way there would be no Iraqi human shields, and no misguided Americans human-shielding those human shields.

Curious to see the reactions from Chumpsky as the one thing the far left and far right in US seem to agree on is that immigration is bad.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by djbdjb
Is anybody like me, in that they would feel better about wars against dictators with WMD if the U.S. had a policy of allowing people to freely immigrate out of horrible countries? That way there would be no Iraqi human shields, and no misguided Americans human-shielding those human shields.

Curious to see the reactions from Chumpsky as the one thing the far left and far right in US seem to agree on is that immigration is bad.

This is a pretty simplistic take on things. The U.S. has no control over the immigration (actually "emigration" in this case) policies of any nation other than itself. If Iraqi citizens want to blow town, their exits are not being blocked by Americans, but by Iraqi security forces. In a similar vein, the Berlin Wall wasn't built by Americans to keep the commies in their place; it was built by commies to keep people who didn't want to be commies in their place.

The U.S. has trifled with open immigration policies in the past, in which they will accept defectors openly and freely from specific dictatorial nations. The most notable recent example was Jimmy Carter doing the humanitarian thing and declaring that anyone who wanted to leave Cuba would be welcome in the U.S. In what became known as the "Mariel Boatlift", 125,000 Cubans took him up on the offer. Fidel Castro took the opportunity to expel numerous criminals and mental patients, who promptly became a major problem for the Americans (fictionalized in Scarface, 1983). Some of the immigrants were (and probably still are) incarcerated in Federal prisons at great expense.

If GWB made a similar policy decision, he might get some Iraqis yearning to brathe free, but he'll almost certainly get Iraqi spies, sleeper terrorists and general undesirables. The lasting solution is to make life more livable in Iraq, not become a haven for escapees.

I don't know what Chumpsky's particular take on immigration is, but it's definitely not a magic bullet. It is, however, a convenient straw-man subject for anyone trying to make a political point.

[december]

A human shield might provide an effective defence if she has had breast enlargement.:) A Brazilian woman, shot in crossfire between police and drug dealers, was saved by her silicone breast implants. Doctors said the silicone had slowed the bullet up enough to prevent it from causing her a serious injury. http://www.mid-day.com/news/world/2002/december/39865.htm