It didn't work for Hussain and it won't work for you.

I’m all for getting behind what you believe in. Protests against what you consider unjust is cool and all, but riding a bus to Iraq and becoming 'human sheilds" is just plain silly.

Pesonally I think Bush is a warmongering egotist and given half a chance he’ll blow your asses away along with all those WMDs he hasn’t found yet. When you get to Iraq and find yourself hostages you’ll feel really stupid for giving the US a real reason to start a war.


Eh, I think it’s more funny than anything else.

Like Bush is going to care about them. He appears to be going forward despite falling approval numbers.

Anyone seriously think he’s going to care if he kills some non-voters?

Well, whatever your opinions of the efficacy of their scheme, they’re prepared to die for their beliefs (I say this because I’m quite sure these people know their protest won’t do a damn thing to stop the war) which commands respect, at least from me at any rate.

Yeah they’re stupid, but they’re brave too.

I can think of a LOT better causes to die for, or at least put my life in serious risk for.

But these are the causes that they believe in. A lot of people say that they are willing to die for their beliefs, when what they really mean is that they are willing(if not eager) to kill for their beliefs. Though I might question their beliefs and methods, I salute their honesty, bravery and dedication.

I can’t.

No, Czarcasmwhat they mean is they are willing to die for their beliefs, or at least run the serious risk of dying for their beliefs. You don’t volunteer to go to war for a cause without considering the fact there there is a better than average likelihood you will die. But hey, thanks for interpreting what hypothetical people really mean when they say things. I appreciate the effort.

Back to the OP. This is stupidity. There is not much of a chance that the US will change it’s mind about the war because of it. They probably won’t change their tactics or their targets. They become the pawns of someone they probably don’t approve of in the least bit. Bravery mixed with stupidity is not to be commended, it is to be mourned.

Neurotik, when you pick up a weapon, you are stating that you are willing to kill for what you believe in, while realizing that there is a possibility that you might die for what you believe in. Pacifism has always been the more difficult choice, and while at times it can be fruitless in the shortrun, to say that it is stupid puts the lie to everything Ghandi taught.

Brave or not, it’s just stupid. If they go to Iraq there is a very good chance that they will be killed, kidnapped or in some way accosted which will give those who want a war with Iraq that much more ammunition for their side.

It’s all well and good to be willing to die for your cause, but to die for your cause while actually causing harm to your cause is just plain idiotic.

If bravery weren’t to some degree stupid, it wouldn’t be bravery.

Please, those who love Bush and want war will be tickled pink if those liberal peaceniks get killed.

That’s not what you implied when you posted what you posted. Your implication was that when people say that they are willing to die for their beliefs, they don’t really mean that. And frankly, that’s just a sloppy or stupid thing to say. When they pick up a weaon to go to war, they are willing to die for their beliefs. They are also willing to kill. That doesn’t change the fact that they are still willing to die for their beliefs.

Next, I never said that pacifism is stupid. I said that these people’s actions are stupid. See, there’s a difference.

Lastly, I don’t give a shit about what Ghandi taught. India won independence because of the British financial and social situation at the time, the loss of support of the British Indian Army, Navy and Air Force. Ghandi’s tactics had not much to do with it.

The key is “to some degree.”

And frankly, I hope these people live. But if they don’t, I’m not going to feel too bad about it.

Neurotik, when people pick up a gun to defend their beliefs, they are willing to kill, and will do everything in their power not to die. It is not usually the case that people with weapons are just as willing to die as they are to kill.
And frankly(though I personally believe the chances are slim), not only do I hope that tthese people live, I hope that in some small degree they are successful. I will feel bad if these human beings with families and friends die.
How will you feel if they are in any way successful?

What would bother you more, Neurotik? People who get killed while bringing violence to Iraq, or people who get killed bringing peace.

BTW your assessment of India’s independence, and Gandhi’s role in it, is stunningly ignorant. I guess MLK had nothing to do with the civil rights movement either. :rolleyes:

I doubt many people would assert that Ghandi liberated India single handedly. What he did do, however, was give the Indian people a figurehead which helped guide and shape their cause. You can’t expect much mroe from one man that that.

Sorry, forgot to say that the above post was addressed to Neurotik

Which is why this human sheild buisness is idiotic. It can only hurt their cause. They will sheild no one and can only hurt the anti-war movement.

Czarcasm, in the event that these people were to be successful in completely stopping a war with Iraq I would be amazed. And it would be a good thing. But the thing is that 100 people in red buses will NOT be successful. In the best realistic case scenario I see would be that they don’t get killed or injured. I really, really hope they don’t get killed.

Next, who do you mean by bringing violence to Iraq, Diogenes? Do you mean Hussein and his muckey-mucks, the first Bush Adminstration, the Clinton Administration, the second Bush Administration, Blair and others like that? If that’s what you mean, then yes, I would rather see those people die than the human shields.

As for Ghandi, no, it’s not stunningly ignorant. It’s reality, Diogenes. The tactics of MLK had a much greater effect on civil rights than Ghandi’s did on Indian independence, even though they were largely the same tactics. Ghandi was a good man and an important focal point for the Indians, but his tactics of civil disobedience were not major factors in the decision of the British to give India independence.