"Human Shields" - are they misguided nutballs or noble humanitarians?

"The motivations of these people are not based on helping Saddam, call them naive, stupid, misguided or whatever you want but stop using crap about them wanting to help Saddam. They want to help ordinary Iraqi's."

If they truly wanted to "help" the Iraqi people, there are much more constructive ways of going about it. As i've said before, sitting comfortably at a location that the United States has no intention of bombing does not prove the courage of these people - and while it is a "bold" statment, it is lacking in substance. It does nothing to help the Iraqi people. If these human shields really wanted to accomplish something and help the Iraqi people, they would be going out into the streets volunteering their services to re-building certain infrastructure that has been destroyed while Saddam has been in control -they could help in rebuilding/updating school buildings, they could offer to help out at the underfunded and undermanned hospitals, and they could, in general, try to make the lives of these poor and miserable people better than it is - you know, things that real humanitarians do? Basically, these frauds could start to physically help the Iraqi people instead of sitting on their butts and doing nothing but opening their mouths. It's a lot harder to go out there and actually help the people, than it is to sit comfortably in a nice facility paying lip-service to the media.

These people are no Mother Teresa's.

 

"If these human shields really wanted to accomplish something and help the Iraqi people, they would be going out into the streets volunteering their services to re-building certain infrastructure that has been destroyed while Saddam has been in control"

That is right. Funny how I would say the same stuff to Bush and his warmongers who claim they are "doing this war for the good of the Iraqi people". If they really wanted to help the Iraqi people, they would be going out into the streets volunteering their services to re-building certain infrastructure that has been destroyed while Saddam has been in control etc, instead of bombing the hell out of them.

Coincidence?

 

"Your justice system is no more humane than Iraq's, so beware of calling the kettle black."

When America starts torturing suspects' children to force confessions, you'll have a leg to stand on, Abner. Till then, your accusation is nothing but bald-faced exaggeration.

And it damn near sickens me how you hold a man who kills thousands in higher esteem than the thousands he killed, people who worked to feed their families. There's something deeply wrong with that picture.

 

"That is right. Funny how I would say the same stuff to Bush and his warmongers who claim they are "doing this war for the good of the Iraqi people". If they really wanted to help the Iraqi people, they would be going out into the streets volunteering their services to re-building certain infrastructure that has been destroyed while Saddam has been in control etc, instead of bombing the hell out of them.

Coincidence?"

Oh right...if Saddam isn't willing to help his own people do these things, then what makes you think he will let the US or any other organization do the same? The fact of that matter is that Saddam wants to remain in power as a dictator for infinity, as far as he is concerned. How does he maintain this power? He does it by keeping the people of his nation oppressed and "in line". And if we help the people of Iraq too much, we will empower them. If the Iraqi people become empowered, then they will overthrow the Dictator Saddam.

As i've asked before, Emilie, what would you and other appeasement-mongers suggest we do to help the Iraqi people? And do you honestly think they are living a healthy and independent life under this cruel dictator, rather than if they were a free and democratic nation? Do you honestly believe that?

Besides, Emilie, it is your country and Chiraq that is putting the priorities of oil and outstanding loans owed to them by the government of Iraq, above the welfare of the Iraqi people. So please, I don't think we need the French lecturing the US or President Bush on how to truly help the Iraqi people.

 

while Saddam was in power before the Iran conflict Iraq had a burgeoning middle class and one of the highest agricultural production rates in the middle east

If there had been no wars and if the economic sanctions weren't applied Iraq more then likely would be a reformed modernist democracy by now

more war and destruction will not bring about the social change neccesary for a functional democratic system, it will prolong the conditions in which a strong centralised authoritarian form of government (dictatorship or martial law as the US seems to want to emplace) will be the only effective form of government

to reform Iraq and promote a more representitive form of government there should be human rights observers placed throughout Iraq to monitor and report on any situation where peoples human rights are being abused by someone in power as well as the sanctions being lifted to allow some measure of wealth to flow into Iraq to re-establish the middle class that was destroyed by war and economiic hardship

 

Someone mentioned Che Guevara. Would that be Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna, the Argentinian guerilla? The same man who set up labour camps for homosexuals in Cuba?

Beware the hagiography when reading about Guevara.

E_S

 

Wow...I did not know that Ender! [face_shocked]

Yet isn't this the same guy that is viewed as a hero to some people? I mean, I saw his poster all over the place in those Anti-war protests a couple of weeks ago.

 

p_atch, your human rights observers will report to whom? The UN? What will they do? They'll have a big talk fest, no-one will agree to anything and nothing will get done. Saddam will grow richer from the lifted sanctions, he'll ignore any human rights activists and he'll see that defying the UN is beneficial to him in the long run.

Next dictator to come along in some other tinpot country will look at Saddam's record and see that they can get away with it too.

Then they'll develop nuclear weapons without a thought to the international community. With nuclear weappons, rogue states like Iraq can be very dangerous to not only others but themselves. Who would challenge a nuclear armed Iraq when Saddam decides to eliminate all the Kurds? Who will stand in his way when he decides Kuwait really is Iraqi territory and invades again when he has an arsenal of nuclear weapons?

He cannot be allowed to ignore the UN. The UN must make itself relevant. Force is the only way forward from here.

 

force is the only quick, simplistic and completely unthinking answer

Iraq wont be able to develop any weapons while under the scrutiny of the international community and while weapon inspectors are allowed to continue their work

Saddam has shown no sign of being a mad expansionist as some would like to imply, he doesnt want world or even regional domination, the Kuwait war was a result of a dispute over Kuwait mining into Iraqs oil deposits which was a result of Iraq refusing to pay its war bill to Kuwait after they gave them financial assistance in the Iran war which was a result of Iraq spending millions defending Kuwait from Iran and deciding that it didnt have to pay back money it had spent to defend them

there is clear causation to the Kuwait conflict, it was not a case of a madman trying to expand his nations dominance in a region as some people like to think

the only people Saddam represents a threat to are his own people but to try and fix this, by bombing the crap out of them which would result in hundreds of thousands of direct or indirectly related deaths and millions of people turned into refugees as well as increasing substantially the threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism from people who have suffered as a result of such policy, is madness

 

So what do you advocate?

More weapons inspections without the threat of force?

Human rights inspectors? What are they going to do to stop human rights abuses?

Abolishing the sanctions?

I'm sorry, but how long do you live this charade for before you decide that enough is enough?

 

theres nothing wrong with using the threat of force constantly and if the situation calls for it using force

but the situation does not call for it yet

 

...And no we're off topic.

Keep discussion in context of 'human shields', please.

 

Che Guvara set up labour camps for homosexuals?? Where did you get this info, Ender?

 

"More war and destruction will not bring about the social change neccesary for a functional democratic system, it will prolong the conditions in which a strong centralised authoritarian form of government ...will be the only effective form of government"

He speaks the truth, before the Gulf War, Iraq was like any other country, better than many, worse than many, but an ordinary country. Like Afghanistan, war ripped it apart, destroyed infrastructure, and lowered the national standard of living greatly.
Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were ever wealthy countries, they were both struggling nations. But look at Afghanistan...torn apart by war, and out of the ashes rises the Taliban, a centralised authoritarian form of government that may not be politically correct, or very nice, but managed to run a country. Look at Afghanistan now that we've 'liberated' it, look how far its come, now people can go to the theater! Of course, that's not a great leap, since they still can't afford to. Ooh, and women don't have to wear Burqas, that was a major advance for human rights. They're still saddled with the same burdens as before, but we get them to smile for the camera!

 

Ooh, and women don't have to wear Burqas, that was a major advance for human rights.

I'd just like to point out that Pathan women in both Afghanistan and Pakistan still wear the Burqa, often by choice, in accordance with Pathan tradition.

 

And that the changes in Afghanistan are more than cosmetic.

 

This liberal commie b*****d very leary of this war thinks the "human shields" are IDIOTS. They're being put up by the Iraqi government and given stocked refrigerators. While staring at their stocked fridge, perhaps they should meditate on the fact that they are taking food out of the mouths of starving Iraqi people. Not that Saddam would give a damn about his starving people, but I would think that these wackos are concerned about this issue. I saw some doofus cheer at his stocked fridge on ABC news last night Stupid git. If these people die due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I will shed few tears. They're not really doing anything constructive or effective in helping prevent a war or start a dialogue about the war.

 

Thtat's not actually true, Jades Fire. Look at this thread - 116 posts, each of them indicative of people thinking and caring enough about the issue to post to a messageboard.

The media attention around these human shields shows the battle they've aleady won - they have challenged the government line and raised the awareness of the anti-war campaign, and more importantly raised the level of public discussion/debate regarding the war.

I'm sure both pro- and anti-war supporters agree this can only be a good thing.

 

Mmm. You are right about that scum&villainy. I concede that point. They have gotten people talking about it, and have raised some awareness. Though I reserve my judgement that they are more misguided nutballs than they are noble humanitarians. If they were noble humanitarians, they'd live like other Iraqi's, or at least share their food bounty with the less fortunate people of Iraq as a way of protesting Saddam's treatment of his own people in addition to protesting Bush's war.

 

An ABC interview with a person on the Human Shield 'team' said he doesn't think he was being used by the government (even though Iraq is paying for their accommodations) and Iraq deserves a chance. Now it's a valiant cause, but if you believe the government of Iraq is going to send you to civilian places (and not military installations) then you are not very intelligent.

 

i just saw a report on Fox News this morning that about a dozen of these human shields have gone home because they believed they were putting themselves in harm's way.


DarthTunick,
i California!

 

do you honestly think they are living a healthy and independent life under this cruel dictator, rather than if they were a free and democratic nation? Do you honestly believe that?

No, I do not think they are living a good life under Saddam but neither do I think that the US action will change anything. I do not believe that this action will somehow turn Iraq democratic. If Afghanistan is anything to go by it won't.

 

Some British 'Human Shields' Flee Iraq

LONDON ? Some of the peace activists who went to Iraq to serve as human shields in the event of war returned home, fearing for their safety, a spokesman said Sunday.

The human shields are mostly European activists who drove from London to Baghdad in two double-decker buses last month, intending to guard civilian sites from a U.S.-led military attack.

Those who returned home had safety or financial concerns, spokesman Christiaan Briggs said.

"The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war," he said. "We do not have those numbers."

The Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported that nine of the 11 British human shields in the bus convoy had left Baghdad. Briggs said about a dozen Britons remained in Iraq alongside several dozens from other countries.

He told Britain's Press Association news agency that Iraq limited the sites that human shields could visit. "Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals, so we are reassessing our strategy," he said.

U.S. officials have said that it is a war crime to use civilians as human shields and that there's no way of guaranteeing their safety.

On Friday, the head of Sweden's largest peace organization urged human shields to leave Iraq, saying they were being used for propaganda purposes by Saddam Hussein.

Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodations and news conferences for the human shields.

"To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio."

Geee...ya think?

I think the 'iron-will' of these people is starting to become obvious - "What?! We might get killed!!! F#$*& That...i'm outta here!"

 

OK, now Ender thinks that they are ûber-prats. "Might be in harms way"? No **** Sherlock!

E_S

 

Like most groups there are the hard core elements who will most likely stay and there are those who didn't realise what they had signed for who are now coming home.