I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam By Daniel Pepper (Filed: 23/03/2003) Excerpts: I wanted to join the human shields in Baghdad because it was direct action which had a chance of bringing the anti-war movement to the forefront of world attention. It was inspiring: the human shield volunteers were making a sacrifice for their political views - much more of a personal investment than going to a demonstration in Washington or London. It was simple - you get on the bus and you represent yourself. The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldn't say that I was exactly pro-war - no, I am ambivalent - but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed. ... I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity. As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family. Of course I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. I told a few journalists who I knew. They said that this sort of thing often happened - spontaneous, emotional, and secretive outbursts imploring visitors to free them from Saddam's tyrannical Iraq. I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others. Once over the border we felt comfortable enough to ask our driver what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment. "Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?" he said. "Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam." We just sat, listening, our mouths open wide. Jake, one of the others, just kept saying, "Oh my God" as the driver described the horrors of the regime. Jake was so shocked at how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn't occurred to anyone that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war. The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had. ... Last Thursday night I went to photograph the anti-war rally in Parliament Square. Thousands of people were shouting "No war" but without thinking about the implications for Iraqis. Some of them were drinking, dancing to Samba music and sparring with the police. It was as if the protesters were talking about a different country where the ruling government is perfectly acceptable. It really upset me. Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom.
Ian, You skipped the best part >Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq. Although we explained that this was categorically not the case, I don't think he believed us. Later he asked me: "Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?" <
Amazing article Ian. Further proof that if you are anti war, you are condemning the Iraqi people to live under a regime of terror.
Well, yeah, these people were idiots. But I maintain that Bush hastened to war, and the fact remains that there isn't an exit strategy or a coherent "democratic" plan for post-war Iraq. Really, stop reducing all anti-war arguments to bizarre stereotyping. The level of stupidity and confusion involve in the "human shield" campaign is the tiniest fraction of people opposed to war, and nobody I know who opposes the war thinks Saddam ought to rule Iraq.
And what do YOU propose to rid Iraq of him? I mean if you ask nicely he may just leave. I am sure he would listen to anybody.....I mean we only asked him like a few times...he must not have gotten those memos.
Well, the point of US policy in Iraq was only tangentially intended to realize this result (the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's tyrannical rule). It remains to be seen whether the final product will be democratic, although for most Iraqis, Saddam's departure would be a good thing. Note that I said MOST Iraqis; we have sold out the Kurds, who it seems won't even have their northern quasi-state, and may well have any hopes of "liberation" destroyed by the Turks. Anyhow, I would have hoped that the US would have worked patiently within existing international law and institutions to fulfill its aim of disarming Iraq. Clearly I'm not talking to an audience receptive to that, but we can agree to disagree because we have axioms that aren't going to be changed by an internet message board discussion. My only point was to ask people not to engage in straw man arguments, claiming that all anti-war sentiment is something like the stupid naivite of the morons from the human shield movement.
Actually, we might not disagree as much as you think. If disarming a country with WMD were the only reason for going to war, then I would probably be against it. If discovering intel about our war on terror (that may or may not even exist) were the only reason for going to war, then I would probably be against it. If securing oil was our only reason for going to war, then I would most assuredly be against it. If you added all three reason together, then I would probably still be against war. Independent of those justifications, if we went to war only to free a people of a ruler like Saddam because the UN lacks the nuts to do so themselves, then I am for the war. 100% until somebody comes up with a different way to accomplish the same result. Yes, I know the follow-ups. That means we should be involved in a war against a few countries. Absolutely. People who think war should absolutely never be an option are people who are blind to the realities of tyrants like Hussein. Sometimes war brings about a better existence, even if the process sucks.
I'm gonna write the same thing I wrote on the other thread about this guy. You're telling me he was committed enough on the issue to go to Iraq as a human shield, but he's not informed enough to know that Saddam is an evil son of a bitch? Seriously, do you guys even have bulls*** detectors?
Lets see now. There are few human shields remaining in Iraq. Some have left because they realized how evil Saddam is. Others left because they felt Saddam was going to use them for propoganda purpose. Others left because it was too dangerous. So don't be surprised by the stupidity of human shields. I know some of you on the anti-war side thought the only stupid people were the ones who believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. So I'm sure this is coming as a shock to you.
Absolutely. I never realized the extent to which the far left threw their head in the sand when ignoring facts would promote their anti-American arguments until I spent a year in school in Madison, WI. My first week there I was confronted with pro-Castro demonstrators - not people who were saying US policy was wrong and that it compounded Fidel's evils, but people who were actually saying that Fidel Castro had done a good job running Cuba. (again, not better than Batista - a good job, period.) Closer to the subject, I once confronted an anti-Israel protester about her demand that Israel cede the entire West Bank. I asked her how Israel should be expected to give up the Western Wall when the last time it was under Arab sovereingty Jews were denied access - she said she wasn't aware of that. I also asked her how Israel could be asked to give up the Jordan Valley when it provided such an important strategic buffer. She said she didn't know what the Jordan Valley was. Whether or not the Jordan Valley is essential to Israeli security is debatable - I'm not quite sure where I fall on this. But to condemn Israel in the harsh terms that the anti-Israel protesters were using - screaming that the "terrorist state" should leave the West Bank without even knowing what the Jordan Valley is (it's the deepest point on earth for goodness sake, and it was a huge stumbling block for a while at Camp David) is pathetic. But it's also indicative of how many - not all, but many - on the far left act. Blame America first (or in this case, America's ally, Israel). Collect facts later. Based on my experiences in Madison (which, incidentally, is consistantly ranked by US news as one of the country's top 10 state schools - not exact a haven for bumbling idiots), I would not AT ALL be surprised that some of the human shields knew almost nothing about Saddam's regime.
Actually it goes off any time I look at this forum . Bunch of people throwing the same bull*************** back and forth as if what they believe actually means something . I think alot of these guys spend way too much time on Bigsoccergeek.com
Dick Cheney's daughter - human shield! http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=245183&lang=e&dir=news
Knowing the corporate values of Coors, it sounds like they probably just pay her $ to go to bars and not talk bad about Coors, and get some goodwill from her dad. Nice job.