Many so-called human shields left Baghdad Sunday, because they "felt that their safety was in danger." My question is, have they come to their senses somewhat, or are they wussing out now that the cards are down? You'd think that someone headed to Baghdad would know of the significant risk, especially considering Saddam's hostage taking past. The wacko left never ceases to amaze me.
If there goal was to make a political statement then they succeded. If it was to actual change American military planning I think they failed, but they didn't have a chance at that anyways.
F-ing traitors. Instead of missile shields they should be used as missile payload. Give them a free trip back to Iraq.
Exactly why are they traitors? they go to be in places like hospitals or water-treatment plants that shouldn't be bombed (according to dumb little things like the Geneva convention). A noble act regardless of the country they are in. Then when they realize that Saddam has other ideas for them, they leave. Even more noble, and definitely smarter. Exactly why do you have a problem with either of these things?
the first point you made was good. this point i quoted is not so good. they were told that he would take advantage of them heading into the whole thing. so pretending they were "noble" and "became aware" at some point into their little debacle is acting pretty blindly. at no point in the "human sheild" expereience can the word "smart" in any way shape or form be used.
A noble act to defend Saddam Hussein??? I fail to see the humor in this. It's one thing to disagree with a possible war, but as many liberals have said on this board, it is stupid to go to Baghdad. This is the Jane Fonda episode all over again, and yes, they are traitors.
Where did they ever "defend" Saddam? Did they handcuff themselves to him so he wouldn't get blown up? Or did they attempt to station themselves near civilian institutions that should not be targeted in war? Can you comprehend such a distinction? Anyway, everyone should be happy about the outcome here. Some people went tho Iraq trusting Saddam more than the US/UK/UN leaders. Then when they saw things over there, they changed their minds. That's a lesson right there.
It's a long way to go to make a statement. They could have stayed at home and still have made a statement. But they will feel good about themselves and make believe that they made a difference.
I can draw such a distinction, and it is not noble to go to the Baathist bastion to defend its power plants and such. Plus, as previously pointed out, we wouldn't target such facilities, as it is against the GC. And we want to preserve the civilian infastructure to make it easier after the war.
Easier to what? If oil companies are salivating because of the opportunity for new contracts, then international construction firms are drooling right behind them. This may be quite unrelated, but can you explain to me how Haliburton make its money?
I guess we reaped ENORMOUS benefits from the 1st Gulf War too, right? What people should be asking is how much $ will France, Germany & Russia lose in a US-led war? Look it up.
well, I guess we didn't reap enormous benefits from the first one. American firms were not generally welcomed into Iraq to help rebuild what we bombed. And saddam spent his "oil-for-food" money on other products. We probably got some good will contracts from Kuwaitis though. And yes, my cynicism towards our government also applies to the French/German/Russian governments. Their objections are for 2 reasons - one; to mollify their constituencies, and two; because post-war Iraq would lean towards america, and the business contracts saddam has signed with Europe would probably be used for laughs. I think we can all agree on which reason is probably more important to european leaders...
I have this vision of someone saying "We can't do that - it's against the Geneva Convention!" during a Cabinet meeting, before the whole table bursts out laughing.
When's the last time we violated that? Despite what you think, we do care about being scorned for stuff like that.
the terrorist jail in Cuba is my guess. we bound them and took pictures of them (both violations). further, Sec. Powell said the geneva convention would not be applied to them as POWS (since we don't declare them as such) but the spirit of geneva would be met.
And Saddam Hussain might be supporting terrorists, so he's a terrorist and so is his army and so are the 100% of the people in the country that voted for him so all of Iraq is a free-fire zone. (remember - they're not with us...) Geneva Convention? Laughter it is...
Never made an Iraq reference. I said i don't care about the terrorists, and you're over there shedding a tear for them.
no one is shedding a tear. where did i ever state an opinion on the terrorists in cuba in that post? you asked when was the last time we violated the GC, i answered. laughter it is
Ah yes, as a resident of lower manhattan, I stay awake all night, crying for the poor misunderstood terrorists. You pathetic $%*## *%&^$% $*^%$*. Safe in the suburbs of $hitcago where no terrorist would even bother to go, but talking trash anyway. Thanks for your enlightened insight on how to make my block safer.