Obviously there are civilian casualties in all wars. But, let me ask you, Kimstu, to compare the United States with our enemies. Did the US cause more civilian casualties in WWII than the Germans and the Japanese? Did we cause more civilian casualties in Vietnam than the Viet Cong and North Vietnam? Did we cause more civilian casualties in the former Yugoslavia than Slobodan Milosevic and Karaan Radovic? Did we cause more civilian deaths in Afghanistan than the Taliban?
In all cases, the answer is no. Your post doesn’t refute my charge of propapaganda; it merely shows that you have been taken in by the propaganda.
december:Obviously there are civilian casualties in all wars.
Exactly. Which is not unrelated to why many of us feel that war should be only a very last resort.
But, let me ask you, Kimstu, to compare the United States with our enemies. Did the US cause more civilian casualties […]
In all cases, the answer is no. Your post doesn’t refute my charge of propapaganda; it merely shows that you have been taken in by the propaganda.
This is a completely illogical statement. Nowhere did I assert that the US has caused more civilian casualties in war than its opponents, nor did I assert that anybody else believed so.
I merely stated that fears about the US causing civilian casualties in an Iraq invasion are likely based on the well-known fact that the US has caused civilian casualties in the other actions you spoke of. Since, as you admit, all wars cause civilian casualties, how could it be otherwise? The idea that this is in any way involved with anti-US “propaganda” is a figment of your own imagination.
I feel sorry for these people. The minute the shooting starts they become hostages of the Iraqis. I would expect to find them posted at ‘orphanages’ filled with biological weapons, and ‘hospitals’ filled with chemical warheads. By then, leaving will not be an option.
But, I don’t feel so sorry for them that I think the US should not target a valid target because of their presence.
If the human shields really want to protect civilians in Iraq, why don’t they shield the Kurds from Saddam? The Kurds are definitely more in danger than other Iraqis in the country. Or maybe they can shield the Iraqi olympians if they do poorly next year?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I get the point. My point is that I highly doubt that these civilian sites are bombed on purpose. If the US is not targetting these sites to begin with, how can a human shield make a difference?
JH:My point is that I highly doubt that these civilian sites are bombed on purpose. If the US is not targetting these sites to begin with, how can a human shield make a difference?
I agree that the civilian sites are not likely to be deliberately targeted. The way I understood it, the well-publicized presence of the human shields at such sites is supposed to heighten awareness of their location and nature, and make the military extra careful about not accidentally taking them out. How necessary, or how effective, such civilian-shielding strategies really would be, I don’t know.
The “americans are killing americans” publicity is horrible. Sure, Iraqi civillian deaths are bad, but Americans are viewed as the “us” rather than the “them” in public thought.
Anyone who thinks the US, Britain and all the other parties are engaging in this war to promote peace are just as stupid as the folks who believed the same damned bunch of lies in Vietnam. This war is about military influence in the oil bucket of the world. That’s all it is. We didn’t mind Iran being an autocratic government when it was our puppet running things. We don’t mind the oppressive fundamentalist theocracy of Saudi Arabia, because they are our allies. This is about influence over oil.
The US military doesn’t want to kill civilians. But the US military takes orders to do absolutely stupid things from the Commander in Chief, and he follows the orders of his political handlers. That means money. The stock market isn’t jittery now because investors are afraid there might be a war. It’s jittery because of fear that there might NOT be a war. Civilians don’t matter much, against dollars, so chances are the war is gonna happen.
I don’t think the actions of the human shield activists are philosophically wrong. I think they are pragmatically counterproductive. The first duty of a revolutionary is to be effective. If you want to save the civilians from bombers, you have to lie down in front of the bombers before they take off. If you want to protect specific targets in Iraq, and not others, you have to choose your own targets, and disobey both governments. A power generating plant next to a small military base is a primary military target, under the current “rules” of war. How many civilians are being protected? By allowing Iraqi government agents to choose the deployment of the volunteer shields, the entire point of the action is clouded by the obvious fact that the peace demonstrators have just willingly become agents of the Iraqi government.
War won’t help any of the people we are currently supposedly trying to make safe. It will radicalize our enemies. It will make our allies less unanimous. It will increase terrorism, and destabilize the region. It will increase anti Israeli sentiment, for no good reason. (but it will happen) And the only thing you can be absolutely sure of is that both sides, no matter what else happens will kill civilians. (Shields will not change that, by the way.)
Tell your representative that you will hold him responsible for any war that occurs. Tell him that failing to stop it is the same as promoting it and you will hold that against him too. Make sure he knows that no politics will save him from your active campaigning against him if there is a war. Success in stopping it is his only chance to hold office again.
Democracies are no better than dictatorships, unless the people hold themselves responsible for the actions of their leaders.
I’m more for the war than not, but I don’t get all wound up with these whackos. Heck, if you have a position, and you take extraordinary strides to stand your ground, then good for you.
The problem gets sketchy if you have to question if these people could in anyway become part of the enemy campaign when war starts. If they do anything to jeopadize any military action by US or allied personell, then it went from a novel idea to a crime.
If by acting as a “human shield” they attempt to defend a military installation or a surface-to-air missile site and in doing so put our troops in danger of attack… Fuck em, I care more about our soldiers than some moron hippy.
quote: Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
They’re only going to protect civilians, not military targets, and The US has no right to attack even military targets as yet.
Yeah you can trust Saddam. Just because he violates the geneva convention and puts his weapons in the middle of civilian homes doesn’t mean he would put the human shields in front of a missle launcher. Saddam he’s areal nice guy and those human shields are free to go where ever they want in a free counrty like Iraq as long as it’s in front of a missle launcher with 20 civilians around it.
I believe in the first Gulf War, only 10 % of the bombs were “smart” bombs. I don’t have a cite, but I think now it is up to 85 to 90% of the bombs ready for Iraq are “smart” guided, munitions. I can’t believe that power plants or water stations will be bombed unless absolutely necessary since we will be occupying the area and will need to have the resources up and running for the citizens.
Hey Tris, we already have the greatest influence over oil; we are the largest consumers. The suppliers need the consumers and visa-versa. This war is not about oil, it’s not about expanding The U.S., it’s about expanding democracy and freedom. When those protesters in L.A., New York, London and Berlin march around with their signs, and curse about George Bush to every T.V. camera they stumble upon; what they are really doing is waving their right to protest in the faces of the Iraqi people! (See what we can do, we can protest against our government, we can yell and cuss and scream, and it’s our right–but we are NOT going to war to help you get the same rights–you have lived the same way for years, so why change, and why should we dirty our hands to help you change?)
It really gets to me, it makes me hurt inside when I think about how the people have to live over there, and not only in Iraq. Hopefully, if they get a taste of democracy, it will get a chance to spread throughout the middle-east.
I personally admire anyone willing to put their life on the line for their beliefs, whether I agree with their beliefs or not. Where I lose my admiration is when someone is willing to kill for their beliefs.
The thing is, putting ‘human shields’ near schools and hospitals is useless, because the U.S. isn’t targeting schools and hospitals. If a school or hospital is hit (and it’s possible), it will be an accident. Bad GPS coordinates, an errant bomb, whatever. In which case, having a human shield there will just make honest accidents have more negative impact on world opinion.
But things like electrical plants ARE valid military targets if they feed power to military resources, and human shields that allow themselves to be put in places like that are actively impeding the U.S. war effort.
Only the fact that this is not likely to be a declared ‘war’ would keep such people from facing charges of treason. As it is, I don’t think the U.S. is going to let the ‘human shield’ question impact their targeting determinations one bit. Nor should it. A commander’s first duty in war is to prosecute it to the best of his ability, and to minimize the risk to his own men and to civilians. If a human shield gets in the middle of that calculation, then too bad.
It looks like some of the shields are coming to their senses. Apparently, the Iraqi government issued them an ultimatum - stop protecting schools and hospitals, and drag your asses out to our power stations, refineries, and other strategic targets.
So, 9 out of 11 of the British human shields are headed for home.
Yeah, I just caught that story too Sam. The thing that struck me was: why would the Iraqis do that? They had nothing to lose by allowing the sheilds to be there, even if they were only in soft targets, and much propaganda to gain.
But the Iraqis did say that schools, hospitals, etc. were considered low risk targets: if even the Iraqis don’t think the U.S. will be targeting them, how can anyone possibly think that? (I still don’t understand that line of thinking: what does the U.S. stand to gain by bombing a hospital, even if it WERE that cold and evil?)
I can’t figure it out. I read one ‘human shield’ said he was leaving because he was scared, because the Iraqis wanted him to go to a target that might be hit.
Well duh. Isn’t the whole point to being a human shield to place yourself between targets and bombs? I mean, if that’s not the point, then I’m declaring myself a human shield right now! By God, if the Americans try to bomb my collection of William Shatner recordings, they’ll have to go through me first!
That may be what the “shields” wanted, but if you think that’s what the Iraqis wanted, you should change your name from “Cynic” to “Naive”.
Apos, the Iraqis did have something to lose - their control of the situation. If that doesn’t make any sense to you, you don’t understand them.
Kimstu, the Iraqis had a specific goal in mind and everything else, including the intent of the “shields”, was unimportant. They were being used, as in “useful idiots”.
The overwhelming arrogance, naivete and stupidity of these jerks is incredible. And after many pompous statements, to top it off with cowardice - it’s hilarious. Gee, we didn’t want to go someplace where we might actually get hurt! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! Follow Sir Robin!
This is a completely illogical statement. Nowhere did I assert that the US has caused more civilian casualties in war than its opponents, nor did I assert that anybody else believed so.