BS: Human Shields

Subject: BS: Human Shield Volunteers
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 02:34 PM

"We the People" organizers said the self-financing human shield volunteers had come forward from a range of Western nations including the United States, Britain, Ireland, Switzerland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and Denmark." Reuters, Yahoo

This is amazing. Do you think Bush, et al, will pay attention?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 02:45 PM

No. Bush has repeatedly stated that the will of the people won't affect his decisions. Why start now?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 03:13 PM

When you think of it, the entire Iraqi civilian population will be one big collective human shield. Women, kids and old folks. And in a war that Iraq has allredy said will be conducted in the streets of Bagdad, you can bet there will be civilian suffering beyond ones wildest imagination.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 03:33 PM

I'm casting forward to the scenario where Bush is giving the order to start shooting- will he/the military commanders bomb where they have been informed that western civilians are gathered? Our society is much more alarmed when our own are involved. Look at Kent State.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 03:39 PM

The question I find myself asking is: will our government treat those human shield people as terrorists?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 03:42 PM

I don't think it'll matter, Ebbie. I think the American people will care, but they'll never see and they are unlikely to even find out about it. If it DID become an issue, the administration will simply say that they issued travel warnings and they shouldn't have been there.

Meanwhile, you'll never see the deaths of civilians, western or otherwise, on the sanitized version presented on CNN. Only supposedly "surgical strikes" filmed from a distance where supposedly "military" targets are hit. You won't see the dead, the dying, the mutilated babies or the demolished hospitals, water treatment plants, and food storage warehouses. You won't see the decades of casualties and lost limbs from cluster bombs and land mines.

The UN estimates 500,000 civilians casualties. We'll never hear about them, any more than the US media covered the 200,000 civilian casualties in the last Gulf War or the 5,000 civilians (mostly children) who die from US sanctions on Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 03:44 PM

Er, 5,000 each month.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 04:30 PM

We'll see, unfortunately. I don't quite agree with your take on it- I guess I haven't quite given up the notion that we will find out and we just won't stand for it.

This administration is giving us so many 'firsts' that just maybe it will also be the first to be brought to a standstill.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 04:48 PM

I hope you're right, Ebbie. Actually, I'd much rather hope it never comes to that!

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 04:53 PM

Ebbie: I have heard many discussions on C-Span, Pacifica and NPR on this very subject and the prevailing attitude is that, like the Persian Gulf War, we'll see lots of bombed out buidings and burning cars but no bodies or body parts. The military has *complete* control here, at least on the press that will accompany the US. The military will dole out to thew press what they want to go public. The rest will be censored and sanitized.

There were 200,000 Iraqi deaths last time. How many pictures were released to the media for public *consumption*. Very few, if any. And these were pictures of military men. Now we're gonna have thousands of civilians killed! We'll if Bush I wasn't going to let military casualties be shown then you can bet that Bush II isn't going to show the civilian bodies either.

And just who is it that can make him? No one, that's who.

(Danged, Bobert. That's a first! Disagreeing with Ebbie?!?...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 05:26 PM

True, Nicole, the opinion of a very small majority will have no affect on the Bush administration's policies.

If western volunteers are dumb enough to become human shields, I hope they wear flack jackets and steel helmets. No doubt Saddam will welcome them, and might even pay their airfare.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 05:27 PM

There, there, Bobert. pat, pat, pat...

Do you agree that there is a BIG difference in our perception of civilian Iraqi deaths vs. western, white (gasp deaths? That is what I'm saying we WILL hear about.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 05:29 PM

"very small majority" Do you really mean 'majority', DougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 05:38 PM

It badly needs saying, I do not recall any volunteers to shield the innocent Americans murdered over the years by the very same islamic terrorists who today burn the US flag and were jumping up and down after 9-11 rejoicing the mutiating murder of innocent civilains in NYC.

Have we forgotten all the aircraft they blew up, all the buildings, all the cars they used to kill innocent people?

Saddam will welcome them for now, but beleive me when it suits him they too will end up lined up against a wall and murdered by his goons
...

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 05:45 PM

And what has Saddam to do with that tragedy? If the US had proof of any such connection, I promise you it would have been well publicized.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 06:06 PM

Be reasonable, Ebbie - after all, these Arabs are all the same, aren't they?

The mass media might try to keep the embarassing stuff out of the public eye, but with the Internet and so forth it's going to be a lot harder. The thing is, outside the United States (and I'm by no means too sure about that even) support for this war is pretty well non-existent. Don't be fooled by governments that might go along with it, they will be doing it in face of public opposition.

If they bully the Turkish Government into cooperating, which is said to be likely, they could well end up with a popular revolution there - 80% of the population is apparently against that happening. And God knows what kind of situation that might end up with.

And Tony Blair could be cutting his throat if he breaks all his promises to stick with the UN on this. He could turn out to be a lot less cooperative than Bush might assume.

Most wars are popular when they start, God forgive us, and it's only as things go wrong that the opposition builds. This one hasn't even started yet, and the opposition and resistance is swelling up.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 06:21 PM

What more could a person aspire to than an epitaph that reads:

Here lies _____
In his finest hour
He died so that Saddam
Could remain in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Gareth
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 06:30 PM

Hmmmm ! I rather think those "useful idiots" to use Lenins phrase, are making war in the Gulf, and associated deaths more likely than less likely.

Still those who wish to support Hussain are entotled to thier views, views which would prove fatal if held in Iraq, or any fundementalist state.

A statistic that I will query - 200,000 civilian dead - Possibly, how many of those were killed by the Iraqui's, and how many by airstrikes ?

5000 children dying a month ? Possibly - How many of those were killed by the refusal of the Saddam Government to cooperate with the UN over oil for food and drugs ??

Great isn't it, you hold your whole population as hostages, and then blame the wicked west for it.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 06:40 PM

Gareth, no one is arguing Hussein's case for him. His willingness to spill blood is well documented.

Let's put it this way: Say there is a heinous murder. We can't find the guy who did it, so we execute another bad guy for it even though we know he did NOT perpetrate this particular murder, and it does nothing to stop the guy who got away. Is this defensible?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 06:51 PM

Yeah, Gareth, you've convinced me. Let's just go over there a blow up anything that moves. Heck with 'em. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. Who cares if a half a million die. Or ten million, right? Heck they're just a bunch of Arabs. And we're sure to get Saddam if we kill enough of them Arabs. Danged Camel jockey's is all they are. They're all just a bunch of terrorists. Born that way. Awww, shoot, let's just nuke the whole dang place, call it ours and put up a McDonalds in the middle of it.... Yep, sure is nice to have that enlightened feeling! Sure is!

Then on to Iran. Heck, nuke 'em! North Korea? Nuke em'! France? How dare they stand in *our* way. This is the United Sates of America. Not some bum on the corner! Nuke 'em! Columbia? Them danged drug growers. Nuke 'em! And Yeeman. Nuke it! Libia? Yep, nuke 'em! Cuba? Nuke 'em twice just fir good measure....

Hey, quicker than diplomacy and plus, I'm sick and tired of talking with people.

Nuke 'em....

Nuke 'em....

Hey, where'd everyone go?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 06:58 PM

I'd like to take this statement of Ebbie's and make a slight modification to it:

Let's put it this way: Say there is a heinous murder. We can't find the guy who did it, so we execute another bad guy (and many of the innocent people who live in his building) for it even though we know he did NOT perpetrate this particular murder, and it does nothing to stop the guy who got away. Is this defensible?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 07:58 PM

It doesn't even have to be about 9/11. Or this statement:

Say there is a heinous murder. We KNOW the guy who did it, so we execute the bad guy and in the process many of the innocent people who live in his building. Is this defensible?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: CraigS
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 08:11 PM

Jonah saved Nineveh from the wrath of the Lord by persuasion - but from what I've seen of that Son of a Bush, he'd argue that Jonah was incapable of Christian charity because Christianity hadn't been inventerised at that particular era of history.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 08:12 PM

That's not too different from what friend Putin did in Moscow a couple of months ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 08:23 PM

Gareth, you said: "entotled to thier views, views which would prove fatal if held in Iraq, or any fundementalist state. (emphasis mine) The USA is not too far from being a fundamentalist state itself, subject of course to our cultural views and expectations. But the mindset is there...

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 08:52 PM

Westerners who were used as human shields in the Gulf War have said that, as far as they could tell, there were very few casualties. The "Human Shield" group is made up of people with various axes to grind, from the most virulent Bush-haters to the tiny remnants of the Rommanian Communist party. The following is from Reuters, which, as we know, is no friend of Bush or American policy.
               

By Andrew Cawthorne

                      LONDON (Reuters) - A first wave of mainly Western volunteers will leave London this weekend on a convoy bound for Iraq to act as "human shields" at key sites and populous areas in case of a U.S.-led war on Baghdad.
"The potential for white Western body parts flying around with the Iraqi ones should make them think again about this imperialist oil war," organizer Ken Nichols, a former U.S. marine in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), told Reuters.
   His "We the People" organization will be sending off a first group of 50 human shields from the London mayor's City Hall building Saturday, part of a series of departures organizers say will involve hundreds, possibly thousands, of volunteers.

Nichols' planned human shield convoys are one of several such efforts
around the world to mobilize activists in Iraq as a deterrent against military strikes on Baghdad.

   In Bucharest, more than 100 Romanian diehard communists said Tuesday they would travel by bus to Iraq to act as human shields in case of a U.S. attack. Members of the tiny Romanian Workers Party, which took the mantle of ousted dictator Nicolae Ceausescu's defunct Communist party in 1995, said they would set off next month to support "the cause of the people."

    The new human shield plans revive memories of the 1991 Gulf War when President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) forcibly held thousands of Western hostages after his invasion of Kuwait. Many were put near sensitive sites in a bid to stop attacks that proved futile, although there are not thought to have been any casualties among the Western hostages.

    Baghdad also used Iraqis, alongside some foreign volunteers, as shields in 1998 against U.S.-British bombing.

    Nichols' groups intend to drive through Europe and the Middle East en route to Iraq. The first will travel in a pair of double-decker buses, led by a car with a white peace flag on it.

   "We are on the verge of something big," said volunteer Christiaan Briggs, 26, from New Zealand. He argued that the stream of human shield volunteers was symptomatic of radicalizing anti-war opinion around the world. "People know this is wrong. It is just so blatantly transparent how the U.S. is trying to impose its hegemony."

                      PROPAGANDA ACCUSATIONS

    "We the People" organizers said the self-financing human shield volunteers had come forward from a range of Western nations including the United States, Britain, Ireland, Switzerland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and Denmark.

    There were also some volunteers from Muslim nation Turkey.

   The major rallying point for Muslims, however, is in Iraq's neighbor Jordan. There, a campaign led by leftist parties and civic bodies is seeking 100,000 shield volunteers Baghdad has welcomed the plans, but volunteers smart at suggestions that they are handing a propaganda gift to Saddam.

    Washington and London are sending troops to the Gulf and threatening military action against Saddam unless he admits to possessing weapons of mass destruction and disarms.

    "It's laughable to say that we are working for Saddam when it was the UK and the U.S. who gave him his biological and other weapons in the first place," Nichols said. "The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. The biggest threat to world security at this moment is (U.S. President) George W. Bush."

    Nichols said his involvement in the human shield program was in part "penance" for his participation in the Gulf War when a U.S.-led force drove Saddam's troops out of Kuwait.

    But those forcibly used as human shields by Saddam in the past are stunned others are volunteering to do it.

   "Putting yourself in danger is not going to help at all," said John Nicol, a British air force flyer shot down in 1991 and later paraded on Iraqi television. He was moved around by the Iraqis to various potential targets and experienced allied bombing nearby.

   "I doubt it would be a deterrent to any attack," Nicol, a journalist and military analyst since leaving the air force, told Reuters. "I am shocked that anyone would want to put themselves in such a situation."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 09:01 PM

BTW, Iraqis are "white" Caucasians. And anyone who didn't see a large number of photographs of bodies and body parts during and after the Gilf War obviously wasn't watching CNN at the same time I was.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 03 - 09:38 PM

Danged! Real sorry to have missed the body parts segment the last ime. Maybe this time....

Ahhh, not to change the subject. But I like body parts attached to living bodies.

Details, Bobert, details...

Nevermind...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: mack/misophist
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 12:30 AM

May I repeat what artbrooks said, in case anybody missed it? Iraqis are caucasians. Indonesia is the world's largest Islamic country (most populous). Arabs are officially a minority. Lets try to keep race out of this. Of the few good things I can say about Islam, the best is that it has always been color blind.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 01:18 AM

Hey, Bobert! I just had a brilliant idea! Why don't you organize a Mudcatter's Volunteer Human Shield Group? That might make a much larger impact than marching around Washington, D. C. carrying signs, and the weather is a heck of a lot better in Iraq than in D. C.! I should think, based on all the posts favoring Iraq keeping their weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam in power so that he can continue to oppress the Iraqi people, you would have a lot of volunteers just from posters on this thread!

The few of us that do not agree with the Mudcat majority can follow your heroic actions on CNN and Fox News Network!

What say?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 05:38 AM

"Reuters, which, as we know, is no friend of Bush or American policy."

I never knew that. If so, that's to be welcomed, since any news gathering agency surely ought to avoid being friends with any party in a dispute.

This weird term "Caucasians" - it's a daft term anyway, but surely the strange people who cobbled it together classed "Semites" as non-Caucasian, and that would include Arabs as well as Jews.

Iraqis are of course the same sort of colour as people from Spain and Italy, if that is what is meant.

They aren't all Muslim either - about one in 20 are Catholics, and generally speaking the country is free from the kind of discrimination and persecution of Christians that disfigures some other countries in the region. That doesn't mean it's a nice government, just that things are more complicated than they get painted sometimes.

Whether any replacement regime would be a great improvement is an open question. I notice from today's paper that stoning for adultery is still legal in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 09:16 AM

As McGrath of Harlow said, its a "weird term "Caucasians" - it's a daft term anyway." There were originally only three groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, and everyone was supposed to fit into one or the other. At some point, American Indian and Australian Aborigine were added, and somebody else can go off on a wild-assed tangent as to why. Then the names of the groups were changed several times, I suppose to avoid offending poeple who didn't like the label that they were stuck with.

The biological fact is that any group that interbreeds enough will acquire "typical" characteristics, whether you choose to discuss the Iraqis or the Irish. This does not make them a separate race. The key to distinguishing a "race" is if the members of it can interbreed, and on that criteria there is only one race on this planet.

This does not change the facts that (1) Saddam Hussain is a vicious individual, living high while his people starve; (2) the Iraqi people do not deserve Saddam Hussain, but he is their problem; (3) it is not the mission of the United States to change the political reality in nations that are of no demonstrated danger to us; (4) throwing around fictional figures like 200,000 civilian casualties in the Gulf War and 5,000 children die each month because of UN sanctions doesn't make them true; and (5) besides being objectionable and ignorent, it isn't difficult to make the case that George W. Bush is also violating his oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 11:26 AM

LOL, Doug.

But I am starting to get the idea that you you would feel more comfy if the ol' bobert weren't in *your* country anymore. You keep suggesting that I should be the one to leave.

Well, sorry, my friend, but until Bush declare's martial law, I'm stayin' put. I know that's risky. I probably should get out while I can but there's this optimistic part of me that thinks that the country will *survive* the Bush regime. I know. Silly me.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 11:29 AM

Of course, at first my heart goes out to those that risk their lives for their convictions and for peace. But then I start thinking about what the consequences of their action will be except for them feeling good.

According to the Geneva convention the use of human shields is a war crime. Usually, in war history, the human shields have not been asked politely to act as such but have been forced to do so. At the time of the Geneva convention, nobody had really thought about volunteer human shields. In the few volunteer cases before (first WW, for instance), the power offered that opportunity had said thanks, but led the volunteers away from danger. To accept such an offer and even to invite it is another of Saddam's crimes same as using a part of his population for that purpose.

Nevertheless, if the attacking party knows for sure that human shields are used, they may not attack that particular position shielded according to the Geneva convention. In case of war, that'll prolong the action and can easily be argued to cost more (civilian) lives than otherwise.

Sad as it is when considering the good intentions of those people, I think Gareth is right here when warning that this action may even cost more lives in the end. From Saddam's point of view they may be called 'useful idiots'. From the perspective of what the effect of their actions will be in case of a war, you even may consider them 'useless idiots'.

I know that's hard and sounds heartless, but I think that the probability of war or peace will not be influenced by this action, but the suffering will be greater due to these people in case of a war.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 01:44 PM

". . . based on all the posts favoring Iraq keeping their weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam in power so that he can continue to oppress the Iraqi people. . . ."

Doug, although, I mostly disagree with you, I've respected you and your viewpoint up until now. But you just lost a lot of my respect with that one! That's a blatant and deliberate distortion of the viewpoints of others, and it's unworthy of anyone trying to engage in rational debate. Shame on you!!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 04:19 PM

Since there is no UN directive towards preventing mass suicide, as a military commander I would simply drop leaflets explaining that I will be following that drop with napalm in ten minutes, and then do so. And I'd call it Operation Flaming Screaming Shield.

Hell, If the Iraqis would give me ten minutes on the ground I'd do it myself with a 55 gallon drum of gasoline and a road flare... It would definitely improve the gene pool... Bet you wouldn't find even an Iraqi retard to stand out there with 'em.

Actually I suspect that it would depend on the target they are standng in front of. If it's an NBC arsenal, then light 'em up. If, as the Iraqis have done in the past, they have put a SCUD site near a school yard or a hospital, and the SCUD has NBC, then you pinpoint the missle and let the useful fools die of the chemicals or bio weapons in the SCUD... Allah does not suffer fools...

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 04:33 PM

I was a bit puzzled by that. I've learned to expect that Doug will notrmally argue fairly, and try to be accurate about the differences he has with people.

Two possible explanations. One is maybe it wasn't Doug, but someone else using his computer, which can always happen.

The other is, I suppose, that he wrote it, but was using a way of thinking in which you say that, if the consequences of some action are such and such, then it is correct to say that someone who should hav ebeen in a position to foresee those consequences objectively intended those consequences.

In the same way someone arguing against Doug might say that he wanted to see hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi women and children.

I don't think that way of arguing is very productive of anything but rancour and non-communication.

Actually to find that way of thinking in its classical form, bone up on the way Stalinists argued in the context of the Great Purge... How intriguing.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 04:46 PM

I was a bit puzzled by that. I've learned to expect that Doug will normally argue fairly, and try to be accurate about the differences he has with people.

Two possible explanations. One is maybe it wasn't Doug, but someone else using his computer, which can always happen.

The other is, I suppose, that he wrote it, but was using a sort of figure of speech in which you say that, if the consequences of some action are such and such, then it is correct to say that someone who should have been in a position to foresee those consequences objectively intended those consequences.

In the same way someone arguing against Doug might say that he wanted to see hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi women and children.

I don't think that way of arguing is very productive of anything but rancour and non-communication.

Actually to find that way of thinking in its classical form, bone up on the way Stalinists argued in the context of the Great Purge... How intriguing.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: GUEST,GUEST MIKE
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 05:43 PM

The following information may be of interest to some of you. 'Nuff said!

Who Sponsored the "Peace Rallies" in Washington last week?

Socialist Party USA
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER)
Move On
New Communist Party of the Netherlands
Green Party USA
The progressive Common Dreams
Free Palestine Alliance
Workers World Party
Partnership for Civil Justice
Nicaragua Network
International Action Center
Muslim Student Association of the U.S./Canada
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Mexico Solidarity Network
Ramsey Clark - former U.S. Attorney General
American Muslims for Global Peace
Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition
International Action Center, NYC
Deputy Ambassador-at-Large, Haiti
Muslim Student Association of Richland College, Dallas, Texas
Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition
Muslims Against Racism and War
Simmons College Feminist Union
International Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Left Turn
Heidelberg Forum
Retired Admiral, German Navy, Germany
AFSCME Local 1072
African Immigrant and Refugee Coalition
Dominican Workers Party, NYC
District Council 1707 AFSCME, NYC
National Lawyers Guild
Muslim Student & Faculty Association
transgender author and Co-Founder, Rainbow Flags for Mumia
UFCW Local 27, Baltimore, Maryland
Brooklyn Greens, Brooklyn, New York
Cuba Advocate Newsletter
SAFRAD Somali Association
Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, Madrid, Spain
Anti-Imperialist League, Belgium
Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, California
California Prison Focus

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 05:54 PM

Calmer today but still madder than tornados since I notice people bringing G W Bush into this as if it makes any difference, it doesn't.

If Yogi Bear was in the White House the he would have to deal with it, and saying some slower President would never have gotten this far only begs the question, well it would still be getting there; if in doubt check out the US flag burning nutters on the news and see how some of them are not bored students but engineers, chemists etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Gareth
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 08:22 PM

Well, seeing that I have been acused of being "heartless", "jingoistic", a "tool of Bush and his warmongers" perhaps it would be proper to reply.

War is not a game of "Space Invaders" - Count the score and press the replay button. People die horribly, its not like some sanitised movie. The question is how can death and suffering be minimised, note the word minimised

I am afraid that the "Useful Idiots" will bolster Iraqui determination to resist, and make a war more likely. Wolfgang puts this point very well.

If Saddam is allowed to continue how many more Iraqui people will suffer at the hand of his secret police ??? Is that death toll to continue so that those with an anti-american agenda can continue to " feel good" Will the death and torture role in a years time exceed those putive deaths in any war ???

There are many unsavory governments in this world, starting with GWB Junior, probable founder of a fundamentalist state. (suggest read Heinliens "Revolt in 2001" aka "If this goes On") - But don't make the mistake of thinking that nothing can be done.

A True Story,

In the Automn of 1944 my fathers troop of SP Guns was holding the line in Holland, across the canal the Wermacht positions were being visted on a regular basis by a Red Cross marked vehicle. As was civilized this vehicle was not fired at. Suspicions were voiced that its visits were not concerned with medical aid, but had more to do with regular supply of ammunition and food. After a few days word came through from the Dutch resistance that this was a regular resupply vehicle, orders were to destroy it. A 17pndr round was fired. The resultant explosions as the 'ambulance' brewed up proved the point. Funny how Red Cross supplies explode with tracer ammunition cooking off ! Shortly after this the Wermacht Strong Point surrendered.

A question I will ask is this. It was a breach of the "Geneava Convention" - True. Were more British and German lives saved by this "War Crime" than would have been lost by a frontal attack against the enemy across the canal against well ammunitioned and fed troops ?????

Of course as we saw last time, puting Red Crosses around your weapons, or placing command bunkers in air raid shelters may provide bloody pictures for CNN, but don't expect any commander to risk his troops lives on this basis.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 08:51 PM

As I understand it,the position of the British Government, even now, is that there will be no British involvement in any attack on Iraq unless there is compelling evidence that it is failing to cooperate with the inspectors, and is concealing stocks of weapons of mass destruction.

Unless and until evidence to that effect has been obtained any attack on Iraq would be a breach of the most solemn undertakings. The only body with authority to determine that is the case would be the United Nations Security Council, acting in accordance with the findings of the arms inspectors, once they have said that they have either completed their task, or have declared that the Iraqi authorities have prevented them from completing their task.

On top of which there is every reason to believe that the consequences of such an attack on the whole region, and in fact the whole world, are likely to be catastrophic. But that is a separate argument.

As for that story of yours Gareth - my understanding is that, if the evidence that the ambulance was being used in this way was convincing enough, no breach of the Geneva Convention would have been involved. But a hunch without evidence would not have been sufficient - more especially if the advice of the equivalent of the arms inspectors had been that in their view the ambulance was not being used in that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Gareth
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 09:03 PM

The breach of the Geneava convention was to run military supplies in an ambulance, and no, my father had no regrets about giving the order to his Crew to fire for effect.

The fact that the battery commander waited for intelligence confirmation says much for the fire discilpine in XXX Corps.

Nasty things happen in war - even with the best of intent.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 09:55 PM

What does International law have to do with anything? The Bush administrati0on never met a treaty n9ot worth breaking. It stood in the way of an International Court becuase it didn't want to be embarrassed over what is going to happen in 3 weeks in Iraq. It has broken treaties on global warming. It is about to violate international law by unilaterially invading another country.

Hey, when it comes to breaking rules, Bush is in a class by himself...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 06:02 AM

Fair enough Bobert - 12th of February it is then.

Just for the record - what number Bobert prediction is this for the "kick-off" - I lost count at the back end of last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: leprechaun
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 06:24 AM

Shame on you Doug. Now Don Firth is not gonna respect your viewpoint. I guess if you're mostly disagreed with, you can't go 'round misrepresentin'. Though what you or your clone wrote seems more like extrapolatin' or even deducin'.

The folks who lionize the Human Shield Useful Idiots are still doing their part to help Iraq keep weapons of mass destruction and Saddam in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 07:08 PM

As I understand the idea is for the "human shields" to station themselves at places such as hospitals, which should not be targets in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 07:12 PM

I am going to say something that President Bush has not dared say in six months.




"Ossama bin Laden"

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 07:27 PM

First, Guest Mike, I'm not sure what it is you want us to think of that list of sponsors for last week's demonstrations in Washington DC. Myself, I think it is a beautiful list!

As to the human shields, well. I don't know how many of you remember a program from the 1980s US wars against Central America, but there was a movement of "human shields" used to stand between the US funded Nicaraguan "contra" terrorists. The organization is called Witness for Peace, and they are still in business. Their website is here:

http://www.witnessforpeace.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 07:42 PM

Actually, that a was a far from complete list, particularly since anyone could sign up as a sponsor. But the wide variety of people involved should ring a bell or two, shouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Shields
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 07:51 PM

Hey, Tetibus! Where ya' been! Either I've been hangin' 'round the wrong threads 'er you ain't been 'round. Darned good to hear from ya'! Fir real!

NOw hows about a vintage Teribus tirade just for old times sake. You know, something between "War and Peace" and "Tropic of Cancer" in length. Ahhhh, that would prove it's you!

Danged, folks. The T-eeser is back. Yup, did his time like any good citizen and now back on the streets and coming to a thread near you!

Heck, I don't know when Bush is gonna have another preztel incident but it will occur because he's an alcoholic and can't really go to no AA meetings, know what I mean. So, yeah, I reckon about his next drunk, he'll call Rumsey on the phone from the flooor of the Oval Office and say, "Let's rock!"

Bobert

---

See continuation thread (click).