Now wait a minute. They went over to stay at civilian locations (Schools, hospitals, etc), to try and give extra incentive on the US military to double-check their targets and make sure they weren’t targeting some civilian target (It’s happened before. Remember that Afghan wedding?). Then Iraq tells them they can only stay at high-risk infrastructure targets that Iraq considers vital to the war effort (Including power plants that are just about part of a military base). Targets they did not ever intend to protect. And instead of compromising and doing what Iraq tells them to do, they leave, since they can’t acomplish what they were trying to do…
And they’re getting berated for this? First they’re traitors because they’re “helping Iraq” (They weren’t, they were trying to protect civilians), and now they’re being called cowards for not “helping Iraq?” Or being too “cowardly” to stick to their principles (Which is also untrue, since their principles were not to protect Iraqi military targets)? That’s kinda fucked up, don’t you think?
No, they are getting berated because many posters on this board predicted this is exactly what would happen. Iraq would force them to guard non-civilian targets. They are getting berated because any fool could see that this is what was going to happen.
It’s not so much that they should have done as Saddam & company asked, but rather they shouldn’t have gone in the first place, since they were shielding what appears to be, by all accounts, a strawman.
As illustrated by Beagle, not even the Iraqi government agrees with the would-be shields with respect to their stated mission. That is, even the Iraqi government feels the risk of the intended sites being targeted is remote at best, so there’s no real point to these folks even being in Iraq. Unless, of course, they want to work for Saddam…which they refused. Either way, then, it’s kind of a wasted effort.
Not to rehash this old nugget, but remember how the aircraft thought they were being fired on? Wedding custom or not, don’t you think you might think twice about getting a bunch of your friends to fire into the air when you know combat patrols are flying?
Sheesh.
Oh, and just to anticipate the other standard objection - small arms fire has been known to bring planes down before…especially concentrated fire. They thought they were in danger, they thought they had reason to think they were in danger, they reacted. Terrible that the situation happened, but it’s really hard for me to get my dander up about it.
Ah, I meant to post this as well, but I was still holding a freshly-bathed and drippy kitten at the time. If anyone has new information on the aforementioned case, I’d like to see it.
Whoa whoa whoa! You mean the Iraqi government intended to use them in a manner they didn’t agree with? Not in myIraq! Must be lies. The Iraqi government lets everyone choose. Why, their election says it all.
Personally, I think that they should be forced to stay in Iraq! If the war does start, then they’ll be vaporized and thus prevented from contaminating the gene pool any further.
The Afghani’s have a pretty good track record of doing that too. I remember watching video of them shooting down a Soviet helicopter with nothing more than AK-47’s. It took 'em a few minutes, but they brought that bird down.
They human shields bailed not when they were told to guard military targets but when they were told to guard civilian infrastructure targets. The US has been accused of war crimes for targeting civilian infrastructure by Ramsey Clark, a leading crank in the peace movement. If these folks were really willing to risk for their principles they would have no problem with civilian infrastructure targets.
I’d go sit in the power plant. I think we have a new bomb which temporarily disables the grid by shooting out wires (or something) without doing a lot of damage.
It still makes me laugh that the Iraqis had to point out to the useful idiots / human shields that the US doesn’t bomb civilian areas except by accident.
Umm… hospitals may be low risk, and air fields high risk, but Saddam’s saying so, while ironic, is hardly a clinching argument? He’d say ‘get thee to the air field’ however much trouble a hospital was in, from what I know of him. (OK, loses some propaganada points, but he gets an airfield)
Or alternatively, the Iraqi government couldn’t care less about schools and hospitals, isn’t worried about how at risk they are and is happy to protect its power, army bases and infrastructure at their expense. They want the human shields to protect their power, not Iraqi civilians.
Which, as has been said, could have been (and was) predicted by many. There’s still a part of me that thinks it’s a splendidly Quixotic gesture though.
Actually, having had two grandparents die of Parkinson’s, I can assure you that JPII’s mind is fine even though it’s trapped inside that body. I was able to hold absolutely coherent conversations with my grands until they could no longer physically talk.
Still, him–or anybody–going as a human shield to prop up the dictator? Wronger than a thing that is wrong.
I wonder why the Iraqis passed up the chance to go for the twofer - get a shield killed in a school or hospital by American bombing? Simple, as this is only remotely likely to happen, it renders even useful idiots not so useful.
If the Iraqis thought that they could get any shields bombed by placing them in legitimate hospitals or schools, what would be the downside (none) to letting that happen? The upside, of course, is international condemnation of the US (to the extent that can be increased), and a possible stop to the war (Highway of Death).
The Iraqis were afraid that these UIs might actually learn something about Iraq or how the US conducts a war. Can’t let that happen.