BS: No more human shields in Iraq

Subject: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 06:15 PM

I just heard on the Fox News Network that the human shields so many of you admired for going to Iraq to place their innocent bodies near hospitals, childcare centers and the like departed from Iraq today. Why? They were shocked to find that the Iraqis placed them instead (and under guard) at power stations, oil derricks and other strategic bombing targets instead. They also were shocked to find that their airfares from the U. S. and Great Britain were paid for by the Iraqi government. Surprise, surprise! So now they are on their way home.

Look for more details in the mainstream press (if they choose to report it). McGrath, keep your eye on "The Guardian," I'm sure they will have a full report on it. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:30 PM

I'm watching NBC news right now, DougR, and they are saying no such thing. They're saying there are about 50 "human shields" from the US there now, and more are planning to go there soon.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 04:42 AM

CarolC:

According to news reports from BBC's Reporters in Baghdad and in Jordan - They are leaving Iraq for Jordan and then onto their home destinations.

They wanted to protect schools, hospitals and mosques - the Iraqi authorities apparently will not let them do that - wonder why? Would all those foreigners notice an unnatural military presence? Would they notice certain high security areas? No-go areas within those facilities? Would they notice the close proximity of what could be termed as legitimate military targets?

BBC interviewed Sue Darling (ex-HMG Civil Servant and anti-war activist) on the subject. They also showed, a clip of a meeting between the "Human Shields" and the Iraqi officer acting as their liaison - Marked difference to those interviews with the international press. The "Human Shields" asking why they could not "protect" hospitals, schools, etc. Were told quite bluntly - No you are not allowed to - You cannot go there. End of subject.

As I said above - Wonder Why?.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 04:47 AM

sounds like another govt/media/propanganda conflict.

this is a good example of 'news' being manipulated for the purpose of swaying the opinions of the less informed.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: TIA
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:26 AM

Let's say what DougR reports is true... seems to prove their principles to me. They went to protect hospitals, schools, etc. If they are being forced to protect other targets, they leave. Like I said, consistent with their stated principles isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:59 AM

Mr. Happy,

Sounds like a sudden attack of common sense if you ask me.

These "human shields" bimbled off to Baghdad ostensively to help prevent a war by placing themselves between those attacking and those being attacked. At the time of their leaving for Iraq, there was no talk of them being there to conditionally "protect".

The Iraqi Authorities then put them in positions that these "human shields" realise full well may be primary targets - Result, "human shields" depart saying, "Bugger that for a game of soldiers - do you think I'm daft - If I stand there I'm liable to get killed." (At that point TIA's allusion to principles goes right out of the window - they would have been better advised to stay at home - it would have saved the Iraqi Government a considerable amount of money - maybe they could even have bought another rocket motor with it, to add to the 382 they had bought already).

Sensible Chaps these "Human Shields".

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: TIA
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:20 AM

But if they WERE in fact willing to risk death in a school or hospital, but NOT protecting Iraqi combatants, I believe my principles allusion comes fluttering right back in the window. Respectfully, the flaw in your argument is that they may actually have fled to avoid protecting the wrong people rather than simply to avoid being killed. I don't believe the fear of death argument holds for at least one who is a local chap and combat veteran. Don't know any of the others.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:12 AM

TIA - Iraqi power stations, water treatment plants and oil installations are manned by Iraqi combatants are they?? - Well I never.

Mind you, if my hunch is correct they'd be protecting more Iraqi combatants if they did go to hospitals, schools etc. That's where Saddam may park his mobile air defence missile batterries, command centres, etc. Those were the tricks he passed on to his pal Slobodan Milosevic in 1999.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:42 AM

Power stations, water treatment plants and oil installations are all strategic targets. Everybody knows that. Hospitals, shcools, and other places like that are not strategic targets. So if the human shields were in those places, it might make the US and UK militaries a lot more careful than they otherwise might be about making any "mistakes". But if the human sheilds are placed around "strategic targets", their getting bombed by the US or the UK would certainly not be a "mistake". There's the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:43 AM

Carol C: NBC did not report the human shields leaving Iraq? Surprise, surprise, surprise. They may not be aware of it yet!

Teribus, I think you are right. Iraq did want the "shields" to see the military apparatus Saddam has located around those hospitals, mosques, etc.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: TIA
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:02 PM

Thanks CarolC, you can put your finger on it much better than I.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM

Power stations, water treatment plants and oil installations are necessary to protect the well being of the populace, and they are military targets. I thought the human shields were going to be human shields. I had no idea that they wanted to go sit in schools and hospitals and hang out. I thought they were going to be human shields. Silly me.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 05:29 PM

Yes, silly boy ;-)

The words to keep in mind are these: "human shields" not "human bomb-test-dummies".

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:41 PM

SO, what is the real scoop - are they leaving in their huff, or not?

On a slightly separate note, did you think, as I did, that when Bush announced that he knew that Saddam was planning on using civilians as human shields that he (Bush) was really just setting himself up to being able to say, what are you talking about collateral damage, that's THEIR fault?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:15 PM

According to this article, some have left and some remain:

"For the human shields that remain, there is a mood of resignation and quiet defiance. In apparent agreement with the Iraqi government, they have moved to five sites around Baghdad, including a water treatment plant, a food storage silo and an oil refinery."

Post and Courier

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:35 AM

God help them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:43 AM

maybe a dumb question, given the change in the nature of war in the last 100 years, but if the US and British object of this "game" is to get rid of the current regime in Iraq and eliminate purported "weapons of mass destruction" there, why would a water treatment plant be considered a legitimate military target? Wouldn't a target such as a water treatment plant (useless without power anyways), be a direct attack on the civilian population in particular and as such, a form of genocide?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:07 PM

Metchocism: I don't know the answer, but I suspect you are right: a water treatment plant (in and of itself) would probably not be a "legitimate military target."

(However, sitting there presents a risk probably somewhere between being a shield and a "bomb-test-dummy.")

As for the criminal aspect of it: I think the answer lies more in operational aspects: You break, you fix: fast.

Here's another article on the subject (not answering the question): http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/022403_human_shields_bed_down_in_the_ta.htm

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:11 PM

Clicky for herc's article.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:16 PM

I don't know that this article has credibility, but it claims that all water treatment plants in the country were destroyed in 1991.

http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/iraq/articles2/274.html

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:26 PM

Clicky for Nasty truths about a crude war

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,OldGuy
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 02:22 PM

CarolC

How many human sheilds left and how many remain? Why did some of them leave?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 04:26 PM

Old Guy, is there some reason you didn't read the article I linked to? It's all in the article. That's why I provided the link, and said, "according to this article... ". That's what links are for.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 04:38 PM

Just got back from Fla, so I'm joining this late, but I do recall in a recent interview that Tommy Franks is not planing to take out any civilian infastructure items like water treatment plants or oil refinaries, since they would be needed to help in the rebuilding effort after the war. There have been some reports of Iraqis stock piling American and British uniforms to "stage atrocities", and maybe the would-be "shields" got wind of this.

When last I heard, the way they plan to fight this war won't be a repeat of the last Gulf War. The concept is to locate some of Saddam's best units and completely decimate them, as an example to the others closer to Bhagdad. (This is a variation of the old Mountain of Skulls approach, and is very effective in dealing with more primative societies). There is no indication of any need to take out water treatment plants, hospitals and the like.

I think the rules for the Iraqis will be simple; "Until you deliver the body of Saddam to us, do not carry a weapon or be seen around one, or you will die." And I don't care how flowery Arabic is, that message can be printed on match books, and dropped in ahead of time.

As for the "Human Shields", maybe they would like to volunteer to sit in front of our hospitals, schools, etc. or inside an Israeli discotheque. They were certainally too late for the World Trade Centers, but there is still time...

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 11:13 PM

Claymore, perhaps you don't actually mean "completely decimate" them? Do you mean they are going to kill 10% of them?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 04:08 PM

Claymore, perhaps you don't actually mean "completely decimate" them? Do you mean they are going to kill 10% of them?

hahahahaha!!

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 01:11 PM

But if these people are as "primitive" as Claymore thinks they are, mere decimating won't do much for purifying the human race.But if the Iraqis are "primitive" Claymore, what about those US allies in Saudi Arabia who readily apply the barbarities of Sharia law under a selective reading of the Quran? And who figured so largely in the assault on the twin towers (which is more than any Iraqis did, though maybe all primitive people look the same to you?)

DougR, can we take that "God help them" as an apology to CarolC after your previous gloating?

I've been a bit slow, I admit, but I'm beginning to see the analogy with Germany. Germany after WW1, that is, when it was subjected to the "justice" of the victors on a humiliating scale. Iraq is now one of the weakest nations in its region and vulnerable to several of them - Turkey, Syria and Iran in particular, not to mention Israel - and getting weaker all the time under sanctions and weapons inspections.

Yet poor old DougR just can't sleep easy until its people have been bombed into kingdom come by the most blatantly over-militarised nation on earth. He will say it is to "save" them, and that loss of their power stations and water-treatment plants is for their long-term good. He will have no conception of what a deal with Turkey would mean for Kurds who presently enjoy some degree of autonomy in northern Iraq, nor of many other side-effects of the war he wants. My first inclination is to think that the DougRs simply don't care, but I think more probably they just don't have the imagination to appreciate the misery that will be unleashed, for absolutely no reason.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:55 AM

No Fionn, you may not!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 11:22 AM

Re the miseries that Jack the Sailor speaks of, an editorial in this morning's New York Times says: "The unfolding mess in northern Iraq is a reminder that if we invade Iraq, we are stepping into an immensely complex region of guns, clans and hostilities that we only dimly understand. The White House thinks it can choreograph the warfare, but if we can't control effete gavel-wielding diplomats on the familiar turf of the United Nations, how will we manage feuding troops with mortars in the mountains of northern Iraq?

"The nightmare is that the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul. The Americans plan to get there first to seize the oil fields and avert a broader conflict, but in the chaos of war that may not be possible. Turkey is terrified that Iraqi Kurds will emerge from a war with access to oil to finance a viable Kurdistan — which they say could become a base for more Kurdish terrorism in Turkey."

He also says that Turkey is rolling trucks full of Turkish soldiers to the border- and confiscating the film of reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:00 PM

So Fionn, the US is more heavily over-militarized than North Korea? Interesting notion. CarolC if you will check the posting times, you will find that you and Old Guy posted at about the same time; you with your link and him with his question.
Your sarcastic answer was unnecessary.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:04 PM

Hi Ebbie,

So:
"He also says that Turkey is rolling trucks full of Turkish soldiers to the border- and confiscating the film of reporters."

He didn't make any mention of Russian soldiers marching past with snow on their boots did he??

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:24 PM

Old Guy's post came 24 hours after Carol's link.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:24 PM

Nicholas D. Kristof said: "In the so far unsuccessful haggling to bribe Turkey into the coalition, the U.S. acquiesced in the deluded Turkish plan to intervene in Kurdish lands in northern Iraq. So Turkish Army trucks are rumbling along toward Iraq on roads in this rugged and remote area of southeastern Turkey, carrying tanks and artillery and pausing only to confiscate film from journalists who photograph them."

I know nossing.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:01 PM

What Wolfgang said.

Check again troll. The post of mine that OldGuy was responding to was this one: 05 Mar 03 - 11:15 PM.

OldGuy's post in response was made at 07 Mar 03 - 02:22 PM.

And my response was valid. Why pump me with questions if he's not even going to bother reading the link?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:21 PM

Blah blah blah blah blah - - why didn't the shields go to Kuwait? Iraq let folks know he was heading there? Maybe send a bunch to Israel when Iraq starts throwing Scuds into downtown - I like the human essence - if you want to be a target - - well don't whine if you become one. Or - how about a little whine with your cheese?

Hey - let's go to Iraq and be a shield!

Sure - that way we'll protect what's really important!

What?? We can't stand by hospitals?? I think we've been conned!

By Mr Hussein?? Duh - - -

Lots of pointless BS here - I think you all ought to stay with music - it's something you know something about -

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:36 PM

Well, we can't all be as intelligent, well informed, and articulate as you, GUEST, but we do our best.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:59 PM

I know - I also think you all would do immeasurably better without GUESTS. Couldn't resist the dig at the shields. It was/is so stupidly naieve from supposed adults.

So I applaud the original idea and attempted execution. That they, and their supporters, even remotely thought they would be used as anything but to protect military assets is ludicrous.

On protestors: The only thing a war protestor really protests is his/her probability at becomming a target. Otherwise we'd see protestors screaming their lungs out at ANYONE who dared to use military action against anyone else.

To do otherwise is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 04:52 PM

Sorry, been away from work (and the computer).

While I'm well aware of the historical usage of the term "decimate" (the Roman method of insuring discipline through the killing of every tenth legionaire) current usage allows the meaning to extend to the killing of a large group or population (in at least three of the dictionaries I checked).

It is what Saddam's troops did to the Kurds and the "Marsh Arabs" near Basra (some 200,000 people). Hopefully our guys reduce the kill time from several years to several seconds. While those who profess the notion that killing entire groups of well-armed Special Republican Guards, who, like the German SS, and French soldiers in Napoleons Spanish campaign commited their own "decimations", is unfair or wrong, they don't seem to extend the same thoughts to the aforementioned Kurds and Arabs.

Those who want to continue sanctions do not understand the venality of their arguement. According to various estimates, including the Iraqi figures, the Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis (including some 1,000 to 5,000 civilians). Based on Iraqi figures, UNICEF has estimated that some 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 die each month of the containment policy, or some 60,000 per year of the containment policy. Thus every seven months of the containment policy is one more entire Gulf War of casualties... and these are all the most innocent of civilians. Add those numbers to the losses faced by the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, and even the loopiest liberal twit should be able to figure out what to do next.

And the end of the killing is entirely in Iraqi hands. With the advent of the MOAB and the "Shock and Awe" campaign, plus the ongoing propaganda campaign and the secret negotiations for the surrender of certain Iraqi units, my suspicion is that only those Iraqis who want to commit atrocities for Saddam, will be given the keys to heaven.

But certainly the need to reduce water treatment plants, and civilian infastructure is not needed to the extent it was used in the Gulf War, where we had to freeze enemy units in place in some areas and force others to evacuate Kuwait. I'm glad to see that Bush has been reading my mail, and is about to commit the most humane act in the sad history of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:50 PM

Claymore - my Brother - your eloquence never ceases to impress me - I agree completely.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:51 PM

And now the Iraqis are throwing the dummies out of the country - human shields my arse - not enough grey matter amongst them to ignite ferver in a gnat -

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:58 PM

Target Markers ?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:20 PM

Claymore, read references in previous posts to the situation in northern Iraq where Kurds presently have autonomy and are terrified that the US will pave the way for Turkish incursion. (They know very well how Turkey treats its own Kurdish population.)

The US has some notion that it can keep the Kurds out of the assault on Saddam. They don't know the depth of feelings they're meddling with. But having rendered an oil-rich nation nearly defenceless, I suppose that to simple minds it must now be an irresistible target.

In all probability however it will spark off a whole series of conflicts. Totally unnecessary, as Saddam IS destroying his defences, however slowly and grudgingly. And in the meantime he is in no position to threaten anyone. (Except fellow Iraqis, but as I've often said, if that was the real concern here, then something would have been done by now about the SEVEN MILLION MDC supporters and Ndebele who are facing mass, orchestrated starvation in Zimbabwe.)

If the world's strongest nation, having led the world in encouraging recognition of international law and principles such as not attacking if you haven't been attacked, is now going to go round beating up the weakest nations whenever it feels like it, regardless of the UN charter, and in defiance of world opinion, then I'm all for the smaller countries kitting themselves up with nuclear capabilities as fast as they can go. You will remember of course that this coming war on Iraq was planned by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jed Bush & co long before 9-11, and that Iraq had sod all to do with 9-11 anyway.

I'm not sure what the reference to the "keys of heaven" was all about, as Iraq is one of very few secular regimes in the region (Turkey is another). As Martin Amis wrote last week, when it comes to religion, Bush is the primitive, not Saddam.

Troll: yes, I would say the US is a bit better developed on the military front that North Korea, but it's only a hunch. And that's before you take NMD into the reckoning. But naturally I'm counting the scores of US airbases around the world. (I wonder why the US recently vetoed that proposal to ban weapons in space, by the way?)

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 11:05 PM

Carol, my apologies. I missed the date (Bad troll. BAD, BAD troll).

troll

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:15 AM

So let me get this straight, Fionn. The U. S., or anyother country, is not justified in taking out a known threat UNTIL that country has attacked said country. That's what you are saying, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:05 AM

Yes Doug R, or until the UN authorises such action. That's what the US signed up to when it joined the UN.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:43 AM

That's why India is not justified in attacking Pakistan, and Pakistan is not justified in attacking India even though they are a known threat to eachother.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:49 AM

Bagpuss: I respectfully disagree with your understanding. The United States has not (and I don't think it ever will ...at least I hope not)agreed to turn over the responsibility for the safety of its citizens to the U. N.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 02:30 PM

DougR, that would be a good logical stance for any playground bully. But where did I say Iraq was a threat? I have certainly said in another thread if not this one that Iraq is one of the weakest countries in its region (maybe the weakest apart from Kuwait) and has been subjected to counter-productive humiliation a la Germany after WW1. No good ever comes of giving vent to such childish impulses.

If you're worried about terrorism go get the terrorists, who on the whole are not Iraqis. Just remembering that as Terry Jones put it on TV last night, a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as a war on murder. You might do better to divert some of the billions earmarked for NMD into checking a few of the millions of containers than arrive on both your seaboards each month.

Better still, you could try making a few friends in the world instead of enemies. But that would mean going well beyond the bully mentality that you seem to embrace so comfortably.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 02:56 PM

The United States has not (and I don't think it ever will ...at least I hope not)agreed to turn over the responsibility for the safety of its citizens

The US did agree that it would abide by certain rules. It agreed that it would not conduct any first strike attacks unless there is an imminent threat to the US. One of the big reasons the Bush administration is having so much difficulty getting support from other countries and from the UN for it's first strike atack agenda against Iraq, is because it hasn't made a convincing case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:19 PM

An imminent threat to the U. S. is not determined by other countries. That is the responsibility of the president of the United States. If he thinks there is an imminent threat that's enough. The U.N. is not a world government yet, and hopefully, it never will be.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:31 PM

Not according to the treaties we signed, DougR. According to the treaties we signed, and the international laws that we have agreed to, we are accountable to the international body that is responsible for overseeing those international laws. We signed them, DougR, and because we signed them, we are bound by them.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 08:59 PM

But CarolC, this present US administration is bound by the UN charter much as Hitler was bound by the pact he signed with Stalin. Until now I've always expected the US and the UK to act honourably and in good faith in international affairs, and I think a large part of the world has felt the same - though goodness knows, some countries had little reason to do so.

It will be many years before either country can retrieve such good standing after this coming outrage.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 09:20 PM

Nice thing about having the biggest stick, you don't have to follow rules, even if you made 'em. Yeah, all ya' gotta be capable of to get a job in Goerge Bush's governemnt is to have the capability to say two little words loudly and often: "Screw you!"

Yep, don't matter what the situation is the response is the same; "Screw you. I got the big stick. Wanta see it?"

Remind anyone of some of the other illustrious folks in the history books? Problem is, these folks always take their own prople down with their arrogance. Bush will be no different...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 02:53 PM

Do any of you anti-Bush policy folks believe Saddam should abide by U.N. Resolutions?
Do any of you (same people)believe that the U.N. should enforce the Resolutions it imposes? If so, how should they do that if a country refuses to comply?

I await your replies.

I originated this thread so I give myself permission to thread creep.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 02:56 PM

I think everybody should abide by UN resolutions. And I think the UN should diligently enforce those resolutions. They can start with the country that has violated the most resolutions for the longest period of time. Can you guess which country that would be, DougR?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 03:08 PM

An article from a 'human shield' who remains, from The independent.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=387599

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 05:37 PM

I know WHO you will say it is Carol C: Would you propose waging war against US?

Too bad the question could not be addressed seriously, but I'm not too surprised.

How would you propose the U.N. enforce its resolutions "diligently," Carol C.?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 05:44 PM

Shambles: interesting article. One thing you can say for the gentlemen is he certainly practices what he preaches. He is likely to "go" the way he chooses.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 05:51 PM

Nope, not US, DougR.

How would you propose the U.N. enforce its resolutions "diligently," Carol C.?

Well, it would help if some countries were consistant in their zeal for enforcing UN resolutions. In this case, the US is one of the countries I'm talking about but not the only one. Some countries (such as the US) see the UN as only being obligated to enforce those resolutions that they, themselves, want enforced, and practice obstructionist tactics when the UN tries to enforce resolutions that they (countries like the US) don't like. So a little less hypocracy (actually, not a little, a LOT less hypocracy) by countries like the US would go a long way to help.

And the US could lose the mindset that UN resolutions can be enforced by violating the UN charter.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 07:14 PM

Too bad the question could not be addressed seriously, but I'm not too surprised.

Oh, Dougie!! I'm cut to the quick!!!

Here's a couple of hints for you in case you can't figure it out for yourself:

scroll down to number 6 in this page (about 2/3 of the way down)

The Charlotte Observer

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 08:47 PM

Well, Doug, we probably won't know if Saddam ever abided to the UN resolutions because in two days Bush is going to be sure that there is no evidence, one way or another. Reminds me of the Supreme Court stopping the recount just hours before Gore was going to retake Bush.

If Bush was not a *chosen frat drunk kid*, and tried his crap in the real world where the rest of us live, he would be imprisoned for obstruction of justice...

You need to wise up in the next 48 hours ot you will be an accomplice. Maybe not in this world's court, but the next.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 09:06 PM

Yup Now the ultimate conspiracy theory. The war is designed to cover up the fact that Saddam Hussain acutually refused to adhere to UN resolutions.

I fear that there will be a very bloody war soon, and Bobert please bear in mind that it will have been primarily caused by you, yourself and the other "Usefull Idiots" acting as defacto cheerleaders for Saddam Hussain, self-indulging in rhetoric without responsability.

I am proud to say that the UK government acts in my namw - are you proud to say that represion and genocide by Hussain continues in your name, and with your active support ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 11:47 PM

Bobert, correct me if I'm wrong,(as I'm sure you will) but I thought that the US Supreme Court told the Florida Supreme Court that IF they were going to have a recount, it must be ALL the ballots in the state and not just the ones from the heavily Democratic South Florida counties and that the same standards as to what constituted a valid vote must be used throughout.
The US Supreme Court did not stop the count. They simply insisted thateveryones rights be protected, not just the voters in Palm Beach and Dade county.
BTW< several major newspapers did do a recount. In at least two of them, Bush won.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:23 AM

The most recent report I could find was from the Christian Science Monitor, approximately 8 hours old, which appears to state that those folks are still there. Although much displeased with Mr. Hussein, which I think goes without saying.

Whatever one thinks of the merit of being a human shield, who has more credibility - Fox News or the Christian Science Monitor?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:39 AM

Doug R, do you have any source for that story, other than Fox News? Many of us do not believe Fox News is a reliable source. Many of us think that it is not so much "biased," as a source of false propaganda and disinformation. The Christian Science Monitor seems to believe the volunteers are going to hospitals, schools and the like. Why should anyone believe otherwise.

It's like that horrible story about the childrens' prison, which appeared so fast and then vanished. Will people believe just anything?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 01:06 AM

Troll, if it is relevant, the Supreme Court stopped the count. They did not, repeat not, tell Florida to go back and count all the votes. They said, if a recount had been permissible, it would have been necessary to recount all the Florida counties. But that was not an option open to Florida, it was a course of action the Court said Florida should have chosen, and that because it had not been chosen, no recount would be permitted.

And then Justice O'Connor limited her own decision to its facts, so that it could not be cited for the proposition that voters in different counties should be treated equally. So that it appears to many of us that the argument which formed the basis of the decision was a rationalization, that no principle was involved, and that the only important thing to the Court was the result.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 02:43 AM

Toad: I think by now, that even the sources you consider reliable support the story I reported on. There are evidently some shields bent on committing suicide that remained in Iraq to "guard" oil refineries and the like though.

Evidently you favor those media sources that only support your own point of view, is that right?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:18 AM

Ahh, Monday morning... Just a couple of comments.

1. While I don't have access to the UN charter, I would be very suprised if it in any way limited a nation from taking preemptive action in any case in which that nation feels it's own best interests are threatened. It has happened on numerous occasions with nations who are still members of the UN. The UN oftern issues a statement decrying the actions, but that is about all. The UN totally lost it's credibility in the Bosnian/Serbian conflicts, as the European nations sat and wrung their hands until Clinton belatedly stepped in.

2. As I understand it, 1441 gives all the power the US needs to operate within the mandate of the UN. Anything else is gravy, and was designed to give Blair some political cover.

3. And this is an after-thought. Why the hell does France have a veto in the Security Council anyway? The veto was provided to those nations who the world acknowledged were the victors and world powers of their day. At that time France was a defeated nation whose organized army lost to the Germans, and then fought the Americans in several battles and sea engagements in southern France and North Africa. Some of the very first casualties the Americans suffered in Europe were by the Vichy French. The country now has a dying culture and language, which is propped up only by government subsidies and mandates. The only casualty suffered in the Iraqi nuclear reactor bombing by the Israelis in 1981 was a French scientist, who was helping them build the atom bomb.

Finally, in a study done several years ago, and recently revived on CNN, Saddam indicated his five mistakes made during the last Gulf War (and they are instructive)

a. He did not insure he had the atom bomb before invading Kuwait.

b. He did not continue his attack into the oil fields of Saudia Arabia.

c. He waited too long to conduct a preemptive attack against the Coalition forces, as they were off-loading in Saudia Arabia.

d. He waited too long before launching SCUDs at Israel, and then did it piecemeal.

e. He put too much emphasis on the French and Russian diplomacy to prevent the Coalition from invading.

According to the CNN (Wolf Blizer) report, these items were taken from an Iraqi after action study, commissioned by Saddam after the Gulf war. The CNN analysts were wondering how Saddam would respond this time, given the information in that study. I suspect we may be only hours away from finding out...

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:38 AM

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack
occurs against a Member of the United Nations (Article 51 of the UN Charter) is the relevant bit here.

Very close to all analysists agree that a US war against Iraq cannot be founded on this article (the opinion was much more split, with good reasons, in the Afghanistan case). That's why most of the US argumentation does not mention article 51 but resolution 1441 which was very carefully worded to be ambiguous.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:29 AM

Wolfgang,

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 may be ambiguously worded - where it is not, is in reference to previous resolutions.

Where 1441 mentions "serious consequences" other resolutions mentioned in 1441 refer to enforcement of compliance by all necessary means.

As resolution 1441 specifically mentions those earlier resolutions and does not take precedence over those resolutions, they still stand in effect.

In 1441 Saddam was given one final opportunity to comply with existing UN Security Council Resolutions - he has failed to take that opportunity - the 1991 cease-fire agreement has been ignored - as a result of which hostilities may resume.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:43 AM

The Security Council...Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious
consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:48 AM

So since the Security Council is the body that is issuing these resolutions, it is the body that has the authority to decide what the serious consequences should be or when and how they should be applied. Nowhere in the above wording does the Security Council give the US president that authority.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:22 PM

My guess is that the US diplomats will use the following passage from UN resolution 1441 for argumentation beside the passage I have cited above:

The Security Council...Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold
and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution
660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

Resolution 678, however, is about Kuwait as is resolution 660.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:34 PM

as I posted in another thread, MOOT POINT re the UN. They aren't asking the UN for a vote on a resoulution anymore. They are going to attack Iraq under International Law.......whatever that is.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:34 PM

So in the case of those two resolutions (678 and 660), "the area" would be defined as Kuwait?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:22 PM

Actually almost no military action occured in Kuwait at all; the Iraqis abandoned the city as the Coalition forces approached. With the possible exception of portions of the Basra road that may have been within Kuwait (the Highway of Death) all the rest of the actions occurred in Iraq, and still continue today under the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. And if the Saddam decides to unleash poison gas in a preemptive strike of his own, the UN will lose every shread of credibility it has...

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:48 PM

My guess is that destroying the UN is one of objectives of the the Bush administration anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:13 PM

You could very well be right. I'm a nationalist and if someone is going to be in charge, I would prefer that it be the US. The UN has not shown me a great deal over the last 50 years that would warrant its continued existance. Saddam Hussein is an excellent case in point. He has been allowed to flout the UN resolutions with impunity for 12 long years and now the US is being pilloried because its president is taking the steps that the UN hasn't had the guts to take.
If the UN was such a great humanitarian organization, there would not be 800,000 murdered men, women and children in Rwanda nor would there be chattel slavery in Sudan.
The UN is an expensive farce and has earned the contempt with which it is held around the world.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,Lurgi-Ridden Troll
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:29 PM

Okay Okay, I get the picture.

Next election, we should send human shields to all electoral booths in Florida!

LRT

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Bagpuss
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 07:38 AM

On legality

an article

and another one

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 09:58 AM

The UN's effectiveness was seriously limited by the combination of the cold war and the veto which the "victorious powers" of the second world war granted themselves. But even its limited capacity for action was undermined by the failure of the US to pay its dues and the failure of member countries generally to commit sufficient troops to provide effective deterrence in one operation after another. There was a window of opportunity with the ending of the cold war, but the other factors continued to cripple it. The problem with Bosnia, for example, was not the UN, it was the fact that so few troops were committed that the mission had to be scaled down to "protecting humanitarian intervention" in the vain hope that the presence of these inadequate forces would deter Milosevic, Karadzic and friends. Similarly, the force in Rwanda was derisory, but there only Africans were being killed, so that didn't really matter to the masters of the universe.

However impefect, the UN as an attempt to introduce the rule of law into international relations is in my book better than the rule of brute force. The current crisis drawn out of thin air by the Bush clique has now damaged the UN so badly that I reluctantly conclude it's really time to go back to the drawing-board. The UN and the League of Nations were both born out of world wars. Do we have to wait for another one before trying again?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Beccy
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:07 AM

Go, Gareth, go!!!

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:16 AM

I wonder how many Anericans in favour of the war do it from Troll's perspective: "Screw you - we're teh biggest." Not only is it a childish argument, but also it will fuel hatred of the US which it will not be possible to defend against with NMD.

Claymore, is it so offensive that the French government subsidises its culture and language? More offensive than that Ireland subsidises a Gaelic-language radio station, for instance? What exactly was your point here? On your point about 1441, Wolfgang has pointed out that the text was calculatedly ambiguous - ie open to more than one interpretation. It was the only way a consensus could be achieved behind it. The US ambassador, urging nations to support it notwithstanding any misgivings, gave a specific assurance that nothing in 1441 was a trigger and that it contained no "automaticity" (his word, not mine!). I would have thought that this qualification went some way towards ruling out one particular interpretation. Or were his words not worth a row of beans, just like the US sigature on the UN charter?