# Human shields in Iraq. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 30, 2002, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655 "2002-12-30T10:16:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/21 "2002-12-30T17:54:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Henry\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/d78d45/32.png) [@Henry\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henry_B)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/22 "2002-12-30T18:51:26Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/23 "2002-12-30T19:26:44Z")
> [@](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/24 "2002-12-30T20:07:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/25 "2002-12-30T20:10:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/26 "2002-12-30T20:16:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/27 "2002-12-30T20:20:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > Number killed in Gulf War by allied forces: 200,000 - 300,000 The mast majority of those people were Iraqi military personnel. Cry me a freakin’ river. > [@](#): > > Number killed as a result of sanctions: 500,000 - 1,500,000 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/28 "2002-12-30T20:22:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/29 "2002-12-30T20:27:04Z")
Chump, you in no position to tell anyone they can’t defend their position. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/30 "2002-12-30T20:30:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/31 "2002-12-30T20:30:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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) ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/32 "2002-12-30T20:32:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/33 "2002-12-30T20:35:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/34 "2002-12-30T20:36:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. [sub]I’m kinda hoping that last line will end up in _Teemings_[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/35 "2002-12-30T20:38:03Z")
[Zoot] I am enjoying this. I should post in GD more often. [/Zoot] ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/36 "2002-12-30T20:39:34Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/37 "2002-12-30T20:42:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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) ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/38 "2002-12-30T20:49:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/39 "2002-12-30T20:58:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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: ---
**Author:** ![Henry\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/d78d45/32.png) [@Henry\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henry_B)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655/40 "2002-12-30T20:59:46Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-shields-in-iraq/145655.md?page=3)