A shield of Morons

[Blackclaw]

First off I have to say that with war looming in Iraq that I fully understand and appreciate those who oppose the coming conflict and those who have strong doubts about if force is the best solution for the situation. I find myself deeply conflicted on the issue and those of you from all viewpoints who are strongly voicing your opinions are of great value to me.

That being said, let me introduce these morons.

http://www.uksociety.org/human_shield.htm

Sometimes when confronted with pure raw stupidity it takes a moment for anyone capable of rational thought a moment to put that capability to use. Let's start with a brief summary. These folks are volunatrily going to Iraq and plan to stand around potential targets that the US might blow the holy bejeezus out of in the hope that their presence there might stop the war altogether.

There is a line between passionate opposition to something and outright treason and these folks are talking a running jump over it. On the bright side, they are probably going to die and thus raise the average intelligence of all life on the planet.

These folks aren't simply opposing the war, they are offering to help protect assets under the control of Saddam Hussein, whom I do believe most everyone agrees is not a very nice person. The possibility that these volunteers might end up use their morally pure flesh protecting chemical warheads apparently hasn't crossed their dimutive minds. If they find themselves guarding an anti-aircraft gun site will they help load? Perhaps take a few nice Jane Fonda glossy photos? At the very least they should take into consideration that they are helping to defend a tyrant who tortures and kills people. It's one thing not to want to bring war to the Iraqi people, another to lend a hand to their oppresive leader.

Let's briefly discuss the hesitation this brillant plan might cause George Bush.

None at all.

Now let's briefly discuss the amount of protection human flesh provides to any object being targeted by a 2000lb Smart bomb.

On second thought, let's not. It's a fairly gross mental picture. Suffice to say a stupid shield is no match for a smart bomb.

If we go to war with Iraq, I will feel great regret at the loss of every innocent Iraqi life. I will sorry for all the soldiers that lose their lives fighting in good faith for their country. I won't waste a moment of my time thinking about the fleshy goo that placed themselves at the disposal of Saddam Hussein.

[Larry Mudd]

These folks are volunatrily going to Iraq and plan to stand around potential targets that the US might blow the holy bejeezus out of in the hope that their presence there might stop the war altogether. [...] These folks aren't simply opposing the war, they are offering to help protect assets under the control of Saddam Hussein, whom I do believe most everyone agrees is not a very nice person.

From the link:Once in Baghdad we will strategically place ourselves with the most vulnerable people such as families and children, hospitals, etc.There's a subtle difference there.

[andros]

Subtle, hell.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

These people are heros.
Let's briefly discuss the hesitation this brillant plan might cause George Bush.

None at all.
If this is true, then Junior is even more of an amoral scumbag than I thought he was.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Larry Mudd
From the link:There's a subtle difference there.

A nice catch, but these folks are still assuming:

A)That Saddam will be nice enough to allow them the freedom to decide what they will interpose their flesh in front of.

B)That they will really know what the heck it is they are guarding. The Iraqis have placed biowarfare labs in hospitals before after all.

[Virgowitch]

Yet another example of Natural Selection improving the gene pool.

[Zoe]

I adire their courage more than I can say. They know they are taking a tremendous risk with their lives. But if the American and British military destroy these human beings, the outcry against the war will be even greater. It reminds me of the monks who set themselves on fire during the war in Vietnam.

Of course there are no guarantees about the outcome. That makes their sacrifices even greater.

Certainly not all of them could be considered traitors. They come from many countries and, as it stands now, only two countries will be at war with Iraq.

[RexDart]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
These people are heros.
<snip remark that this action will cause Bush no hesitation>

If this is true, then Junior is even more of an amoral scumbag than I thought he was.

Oh, I guess he's even "more" of an "amoral scumbag" than you thought because he won't allow a mere handful of people armed only with passports, not even from the U.S., to affect a major U.S. policy decision? You actually think that it would be more "moral" for him to allow a couple dozen people to hold U.S. policy in check? If this tactic were actually effective, we might as well abandon our sovereignty over to whatever group of kooks walks by, or even Frenchmen.

Jeez, people thought I was an appeaser suggesting we should adopt policies designed to "stop pissing off the terrorists", but this goes too far even for me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You actually think that it would be more "moral" for him to allow a couple dozen people to hold U.S. policy in check?
Absolutely I think it's more moral-- if US policy is as evil and indefensible as Bush wants to make it.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Absolutely I think it's more moral-- if US policy is as evil and indefensible as Bush wants to make it.

You only need 11 more people to officially be a band of kooks.

[furt]

Originally posted by Zoe
They come from many countries and, as it stands now, only two countries will be at war with Iraq.

19 actually, but who's counting?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0122/p04s01-woiq.html


(certainly not CNN or BBC)

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Zoe
I adire their courage more than I can say. They know they are taking a tremendous risk with their lives. But if the American and British military destroy these human beings, the outcry against the war will be even greater. It reminds me of the monks who set themselves on fire during the war in Vietnam.


If they really do end up being allowed to hang out in the homes of Iraqi civilians and hospitals then odds are pretty good they'll be just fine since the US doesn't intentionally target such things anyway. Follow that thought for a moment.. they will be detering attacks from places that the US won't be targeting anyway. Why yes, at best it's a big waste of time! Although I'm sure when they get back they'll subject us to the torture of their book deals.

Of course there's the "at worst" possibility and these nimrods think that that would be being hit by an errant US strike. Oh, no dear peons. The worst scenario involves Saddam rounding them up as free hostages. Perhaps he'll toss a few into an acid bath and send the film footage to CNN. He'll demand an end to hostalities or the rest get dunked too. Saddam when cornered is going to get very desperate.

These folks are small minded potential little tools.

[Liberal]

Diogenes wrote:

If this is true, then Junior is even more of an amoral scumbag than I thought he was.It is unfortunate that we're losing a perfectly good word. While amoral does still primarily mean morally neutral, it is fast encroaching on meaning immoral. The Amorality Preservation Society thanks you for your future diligence.

[EhhMon]

I just saw this guy being interviewed on FOX and Friends, is it true what he said? That we the US supplied all those chemicals and warfare ammunition to IRAQ, when they were at war with IRAN?

Someone please confirm, because this is the first I've heard of it.....I hope its not true.

[Andy]

Originally posted by Blackclaw
These folks are small minded potential little tools.

Small minded? How so?
You may think their tactics are ill-conceived, but surely their ultimate goal is admirable (the prevention of war and/or civilian casualties)?
Other than their own, whose lives are they risking?
What's your problem with these people?
If all you're worried about is their stupidity, you'll worry yourself to death on this planet!
Is your real concern that maybe their death or presence would make a big difference in the propaganda war?

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by EhhMon
I just saw this guy being interviewed on FOX and Friends, is it true what he said? That we the US supplied all those chemicals and warfare ammunition to IRAQ, when they were at war with IRAN?

Someone please confirm, because this is the first I've heard of it.....I hope its not true.


Many chemicals have dual use capabilites. During the 1980's US companies were not restricted in selling such chemicals to Iraq. And yes, even after we should have known better. US companies never supplied a big vat of mustard gas, but US and European chemical companies did sell to Iraq the necessary precursor chemicals so they could mix it themselves.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Andy
Small minded? How so?
You may think their tactics are ill-conceived, but surely their ultimate goal is admirable (the prevention of war and/or civilian casualties)?
Other than their own, whose lives are they risking?
What's your problem with these people?
If all you're worried about is their stupidity, you'll worry yourself to death on this planet!
Is your real concern that maybe their death or presence would make a big difference in the propaganda war?


Their tactics are futile and insulting. They are implying that while the US wouldn't hesitate to bomb some poor Iraqi's house, it won't do it if some Westerner flesh is there. This is simply not true. The US military will try to avoid civilian casualties whether or not these human shields are present. If a bomb goes astray, their presence won't change the horrific results. Their actions go too far in aiding Saddam. At best they provide propaganda for him, at worst they'll become bargaining chips. I also suspect that some of these people might be surprised at the reception that some Iraqis will give them. There are Iraqis who would welcome Saddam's demise even at the terrible cost of war. I doubt very much that some Iraqis will understand these peace loving folks coming in and trying to prevent the overthrow of a man who probably killed or tortured a relative of theirs.

[Brutus]

That guy they just interviewed on Fox and friends was freakish looking. Facial piercings? Ya, he'll get into Iraq...

Since Saddam has shown in the last round of games that he has no problem with hiding military targets under civilian facilities, I suspect that we will soon have little bits of human shields all over Iraq, just adding to the workload of those who are going to have to clean up.

[Andy]

Originally posted by Blackclaw
Their tactics are futile and insulting.
Insulting to whom? If they're futile, why do you care?
They are implying that while the US wouldn't hesitate to bomb some poor Iraqi's house, it won't do it if some Westerner flesh is there. This is simply not true. The US military will try to avoid civilian casualties whether or not these human shields are present. If a bomb goes astray, their presence won't change the horrific results.
So you're saying that the US will try to equally avoid loss of life among westerners and Iraqis. Good.
Their actions go too far in aiding Saddam. At best they provide propaganda for him, at worst they'll become bargaining chips.
So given that their lives are no more or less valuable than millions of Iraqi lives (many bargaining chips there!), why might they become bargaining chips themselves?
I also suspect that some of these people might be surprised at the reception that some Iraqis will give them. There are Iraqis who would welcome Saddam's demise even at the terrible cost of war. I doubt very much that some Iraqis will understand these peace loving folks coming in and trying to prevent the overthrow of a man who probably killed or tortured a relative of theirs.
Yeah, OK, hands up all Iraqis who are prepared to die in bombings in order to get Saddam out. C'mon, we need more of you than that!!!

To me this is legitimate (albeit exceptionally risky!) protest.
OK, I know this isn't GD so I'll shut up.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Andy
Insulting to whom? If they're futile, why do you care?

Insulting to the US military for implying that they will only try to avoid hitting civilian targets if Westerners are present.

Why do I care? Um.. well my own life sucks right now so I'm just redirecting it. A classic case really..


So given that their lives are no more or less valuable than millions of Iraqi lives (many bargaining chips there!), why might they become bargaining chips themselves?

Because Saddam thinks they have a higher value to us.


Yeah, OK, hands up all Iraqis who are prepared to die in bombings in order to get Saddam out. C'mon, we need more of you than that!!!
You'd be surprised. I heard an NPR report where a reporter commented on several Iraqis that snuck over to him, away from the ever present Iraqi handlers, and whisper just such support for US action. They risked their lives just to do that.

I'm not under some grand illusion that all Iraqis will welcome US military action, especially if things go bad and house to house fighting erupts with heavy civilian casualties. But I also believe that the average Iraqi very much would like to see Saddam dead.

To me this is legitimate (albeit exceptionally risky!) protest.
OK, I know this isn't GD so I'll shut up.

To me it crosses the line. I can see the anti-war protestors in Washington as patriotic, but these folks are rushing off to give support to Saddam, even if that isn't their true intention.

No need to shut up, you are doing fine. I put this in the BBQ pit because I thought it would degenrate quickly. I could cuss more I suppose. But note that I didn't cite my NPR reference. So Ha!

[Larry Mudd]

Insulting to the US military for implying that they will only try to avoid hitting civilian targets if Westerners are present.That may not be the idea-- It may be the press which might place a higher value on "occidental targets."

I'm sure nobody wants to see a repeat of what happened in 1989 in Panama-- where, if you believed the news, the Panamanian people were grateful for the surgical removal of Noriega and the PDF, and most people didn't find out that entire neighborhoods had been completely flattened until the whole thing was long over. You can bet that we would have looked closer sooner if a couple of our neighbors stood up and said, "My husband/daughter/cousin was killed while staying in an apartment building which was bombed."

[CRorex]

Originally posted by Larry Mudd
From the link:There's a subtle difference there.

Actually Mudd, there isn't any difference.

Remember during and after the gulf war that a number of strategic military targets were placed near schools, hospitals and housing?

[Mehitabel]

General Meyers is saying (http://www.vnis.com/vetnews/usdefense.shtml) that, if they know there's shields there, they'll assess each situation differently. "The object is clearly not to engage noncombatants."

Remember Saddam kidnapping luckless foreigners, soldiers and civilians, and literally chaining them to his missle silos and such in 1990 and '98? In a way, I hope that happens to these--maybe traitors is too strong a word, but they're idiots. I want to see Saddam say to them, "OK, if you really want to help Iraq, forget the hospitals--we need our weapons protected!" and see what they do then.

And, oh yeah, using human shields is against the Geneva Convention and all, but Saddam doesn't care. You would think an ex-Marine would.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Larry Mudd
That may not be the idea-- It may be the press which might place a higher value on "occidental targets."

I'm sure nobody wants to see a repeat of what happened in 1989 in Panama-- where, if you believed the news, the Panamanian people were grateful for the surgical removal of Noriega and the PDF, and most people didn't find out that entire neighborhoods had been completely flattened until the whole thing was long over. You can bet that we would have looked closer sooner if a couple of our neighbors stood up and said, "My husband/daughter/cousin was killed while staying in an apartment building which was bombed."

The press jumps all over every misplaced round as it is. It seems to astonish them that wars actually kill people. I have no problem with the coverage. I want everyone to know before we go in just how serious the consequences are. It just irks me that once we commit ourselves folks act surprised over the cost we knew was coming.

In Panama, the PDF intentionally set fires to neighborhoods. Looting and general chaos destroyed whole neighborhoods, not US forces. Most Panamanians still feel the cost was worth it.

An Iraqi whose husband was tortured to death probably would be willing to pay a high price as well. Don't expect her to greet the flesh shields with enthusiasm.

The problem is of course we don't know what the Iraqi people really want, we have little way to really guess, and do we have the right to decide for them? The Iraqi opposition sure wants our help, but they have their own agendas at work.

As I said, I fully understand opposition to the war, but I oppose doing anything that could help Saddam.

[Cheesesteak]

Civilian casualties are all but inevitable during any large scale warfare. All this will do is give the media the names of some 'heroes' to blabber on and on about, when they get killed. Our forces are already very cautious about civilian casualties, the only way to reduce them further is to stop dropping bombs altogether. We all know that won't happen, so this will wind up being nothing more than a propaganda tool to inform the world how evil the US is.

[Tars Tarkas]

so this will wind up being nothing more than a propaganda tool to inform the world how evil the US is.

So what do you think the whole war is in the first place? Do you honestly think taking out Saddam will cause Al-Qaeda to dry up from lack of members? Please, they will swell by the thousands to fight off the perceived threat of US Imperialism against their way of life. And then Americans HERE will die. And the blood will be on W's hands, but he will probably use it as an excuse to invade Iran.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
So what do you think the whole war is in the first place? Do you honestly think taking out Saddam will cause Al-Qaeda to dry up from lack of members? Please, they will swell by the thousands to fight off the perceived threat of US Imperialism against their way of life. And then Americans HERE will die. And the blood will be on W's hands, but he will probably use it as an excuse to invade Iran.

Saddam has no solid connection to AL-Qaeida. I suppose that's one of my objections to this war. It seems we're gearing up for it under false pretenses.

Terrorists will kill Americans in the US again if we attack Iraq. They will kill Americans if we don't. Short of the US becoming an Islamic fundamentalist state, we're going to get attacked again. I don't really see any use in deciding anything in a manner that would try and placate would be terrorists. If we don't attack Iraq, it should be because that's the right thing to do, not because we fear some pond scum.

[Tars Tarkas]

yes Saddan and Al-Qaeda have little or no connection, but that will change when we come rushing in to fight our little war. A common enemy unites the people. Us running around beating the war drum with little evidence Iraq is doing anything makes up look like war-mongers and gives fuel to the terrorists. Since you seem to be on the fence, do you think that there are other options?

[JohnT]

Personally, we ought to let them go in. Fly them in, ourselves, and give Saddam our blessing to use them as human shields.

To further show our concern for the protestors, we also need to make sure that they are equipped with military-spec GPS positioning units, telling them QUITE LOUDLY, REPEATEDLY, AND FORCEFULLY that the transmissions will ensure their safety as we know where they are and therefore will not attack those locations. We also need to let Saddam know about our newfound resolve as well.

Then, when Saddam puts these people in front of military installations, gov't buildings and the like...

BOOM!!!!!

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
yes Saddan and Al-Qaeda have little or no connection, but that will change when we come rushing in to fight our little war. A common enemy unites the people. Us running around beating the war drum with little evidence Iraq is doing anything makes up look like war-mongers and gives fuel to the terrorists. Since you seem to be on the fence, do you think that there are other options?

As I said before, I really don't think it matters what we do as pertains to Iraq, Al-Qaeida is going to attack us anyway. If we do attack, I don't think Saddam is going to be in a position to provide them much help.

What are other options on really depends on what the US's real goals are. If the goal really is to simply disarm Saddam, then we should just give the UN arms inspectors whatever time they need. Saddam's had chemical weapons for decades, so what's the rush? Nuclear programs tend to be rather large and difficult to hide and since the inspectors haven't tripped over one yet, I doubt he has an active one.

If our real goal is to get rid of Saddam and thus put pressure on Saudi Arabia while at the same time securing our future buying rights of oil in the region as well as creating a new US ally in the Middle -East, well then the only option to gain that is to invade. But I don't think there's anyway under current International Law to justify it.