Salon.com on the Stand-Fast in Baghdad (Human Shield) Efforts...

Peace activists are flocking to Iraq to put their bodies in the way of American bombs, with no training for what they'll face in a war zone. Are they heroes or dupes?

If you took their mean IQ in pennies, you wouldn't be able to buy a pack of gum....

 

Dupes.

I would be a human shield for my wife and children. Maybe for a bona fide saint.

Despot is farther down the list.

 

You can hardly judge people who take risks to stand for their ideals.

Is it smart? Not really. Are some of them total asses? Surely.

BTW This secret society (sounds exciting doesn't it?) that is talked about. Isn't it called skull and bones, kinda like in the movie?

 

Gotta go with dupes. I get that they want to protect innocent civilians. The despot is probably the safest man in the Middle East, with all the bunkers he's built. It's the poor suckers on the surface who are going to have to learn to breathe the end product of fuel-air explosives.

So I'm not questioning their heart. The problem is the premise. First of all, there's this vaguely reverse racist idea that because they, Westerners, are there, somehow that will make people think twice. They may be playing off the "2 Americans die in plane crash, 800 also killed" syndrome, but it does have the odor that we're meant to assume these people's lives are valuable simply because they're Westerners.

More to the point, this is George W. Bush we're talking about. The idea that Dubya is going to even blink at the "problem" of a few innocent bystanders is just laughable. As far as human shields are concerned, they are literally as helpful as trying to stop bullets with a bag of skin and water.

Now, if they're saying "We are sacrificing ourselves for this cause," like those monks who set themselves on fire, or the samurai who killed themselves when they lost their honor, then okay, that's a little different. But I get the feeling these people believe they're actually going to help things, and holy Lord, did they have coffee and wrong for breakfast.

 

Asked what she thinks of Saddam, she replies, "Personally, I don't know enough about him to give you an educated opinion."

Because she doesn't believe Saddam is a monster, she doesn't worry about him forcing human shields to guard sites other than the ones they choose. "I don't think the Iraqi government would use us to that degree," she says. "I think they know goodwill gestures when they see them. I don't think they're that indecent."

Won't these human shield organizers be guilty of executing the mentally retarded? How could you let sheep like this wander into the impact area?

 

I'm with Dan on this one. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are going to die anyway if the U.S. invades. To make a big deal one way or another about a few (anglo) Westeners being in harm's way is racist.

 

Yes, we are going to cluster bomb Baghdad, just so we can kill as you put it "tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis," just so we can swing world opinion against us! You obviously haven't heard anything about the war plans, and are simply making things up. We will use almost exclusively precision guided weapons, way more than what was used in the Gulf War.At least 3,000 JDAMs will be used, as well as around 2,000 laser and tv guided weapons. The bombing campaign will knock out only military targets such as radar stations, AA artillery, and SAM sites.It would be to our advantage to avoid bombing civilian targets such as cities, roads, bridges, and the like so that we can preserve a lot of the infastructure for a new Iraq. But no, i guess that would make too much sense. Nope you're right gringo and loney, we're going to launch a nuclear first strike on all major iraqi cities, and then drop fuel-air explosives on all of the villages. Surely, we don't want a single Iraqi left standing, for they would just get in the way of our Chevron people that make up the second wave.

 

You're naive if you think there won't be civilian casualties. While even a Bush-hater like me pooh-poohs the notion that Bush is deliberately targeting civilians, there will be civilian casualties, and too many of them, in the event of a war.

But Dan's right. These people are dupes, and I have zero sympathy for them. If they want to give their lives for a despot, that's fine. Just don't be surprised if their obituaries show up in the Darwin Awards.

 

You think this is a video game? What are you- a teenager who knows "practice makes perfect" with a joystick? Can you even name a war where civilian casulaties weren't a substantial percentage of the overall total?

If you support this war, fine- but at least be man enough to recognize the sacrifice that's going to be made.

 

I never said there wouldn't be civilian casualties. You're right, there are always some. But tens of thousands? Please, that implies we want to hurt the Iraqi people. I would say a better guess would be around 1600 so. A terrible loss indeed, but as you said, war isn't a video game, and bombs go off target. I was simply stunned at the huge number you predicted.

 

I just love how these human shields are going over there to try to protect the citizens of Iraq from getting killed...yet a good number of them are being placed in power plants, utilities stations, near military targets, etc. To win a war one must make the opposition want to stop fighting. Destroying these power plants and utilitiy stations is most likely inevitable. While it will cause some hurt to the civilians, it would not be like bombing a school or a mosque. If these human shields want to protect innocent Iraqi civilians, why not put yourselves up in the houses, schools, mosques, grocery stores (markets), etc. But no, that would be too easy, and you wouldn't be helping Hussein if you did that. Gringo Tex got it right when he said that it is stupid to think that civilians won't die in a war, however, we can only hope that limiting the number of deaths is something that can be accomplished.

 

i suppose it's more commentary on this overall opinion that the US military has no fail safes at trying to prevent civilian casualties. and how terribly ignorant it is.

 

Maybe a couple of these shields will get to stay in the neighborhood where it's alleged that 15 people were publicly beheaded by Uday's secret police.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/thestory.html

Lovely place, that Iraq.

 

the US has very strong failsafes for trying to prevent civilian causualties. however, things still go wrong. war is controlled chaos and you lose control of it quite often.

added to the normal number of mistakes that occur in war is the fact that Saddam will put strategic targets next to school, mosques, and hospitals to try to A) keep the US from bombing them and B) get really great footage to broadcast of civilian causualties to try to end the desire to fight.

Saddam is responsible for those deaths, but i don't think the dead will care who was responsible.

edit

ps, Irish, unscom hasn't existed for years

 

Exactly, so why is Garafalo going around trumpeting their name? She claims UNSCOM was "extremely sucessful." Sucessful enough to not exist? Wow, you just walked right into that one.

 

ok moron. UNSCOM was extremely successful, destroying vastly more weapons and stockpiles than the total operations of Desert Storm. It stopped existing after Operation Desert Fox, when it was removed by the UN because Saddam wasn't cooperating (and because the US was about to bomb). It's replaced by UNMOVIC.

Wow, you just walked right into that one.

 

UNSCOM was only as succesful as the Iraqis allowed it to be. the entire UN prescence from 91-98' was a joke. they were not free to go wherever, to destroy whatever. it was all guided by the Iraqis.
And as for UNMOVIC, it will be the same. Inspections wont work with a regime that disregards the UN.

 

here's a little history.

quoted from Overington, Caroline. "Is This the End for the United Nations," Sydney Morning Herald, Feb. 22, 2003. pg. 46

(found on lexis.com search so I don't think that link would work.)

A SHORT history of the un AND IRAQ

1991

April In the aftermath of the Gulf War, Resolution 687 decides that Iraq should accept the destruction, removal and disarming of its weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles and weapons factories.

June The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) commences inspections.

August Resolution 707 demands complete Iraqi disclosure of its weapons program.

September Security Council threatens enforcement after documents are found indicating Iraq tried to acquire nuclear weapons.

October Resolution 715 says Iraq should accept inspectors unconditionally. Iraq says it is not ready to comply.

1992

May/June Iraq discloses details of its

biological and missile program but says it is "defensive".

July UNSCOM begins destroying chemical weapons and factories.

1993

January Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq, which the Security Council says is an "unacceptable and material" breach and warns of "serious consequences". After allied air raids, Iraq tells UNSCOM that it can resume flights.

November Iraq accepts Resolution 715

1994

June UNSCOM destroys large quantities of chemical warfare agents, components and equipment.

October Having withdrawn co-operation, Iraq deploys troops in the direction of Kuwait, which leads the US to deploy troops in Kuwait. Resolution 949 demands Iraqi co-operation and withdrawal of its military from southern Iraq. Iraq withdraws and resumes co-operation with UNSCOM.

1995

July Iraq admits it has an offensive biological weapons program after UNSCOM finds irrefutable evidence.

November Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq.

1996

March UNSCOM denied access to five sites. Resolution 1051 demands full and unconditional co-operation.

May/June Iraq's main facility for the production of biological agents is destroyed by UNSCOM.

June Resolution 1060 says Iraq has violated UN provisions and demands access to all sites. Iraq denies access to another inspection team.

1997

June Iraq blocks more sites to UNSCOM teams. Resolution 1115 condemns Iraq and suspends periodic reviews of sanctions.

October Resolution 1134 demands co-operation and foreshadows additional sanctions. UNSCOM destroys large quantities of chemical weapons.

November Iraq expels US personnel

working with UNSCOM. UNSCOM withdraws but returns after diplomatic efforts.

1998

January Iraq withdraws co-operation and blocks work of the inspection teams.

February The UN Secretary-General visits Iraq and secures an assurance of co-operation.

August Iraq halts co-operation, which the

Security Council says is "totally unacceptable".

December UNSCOM withdraws staff from Iraq.

As seen in this brief history, Iraq was not compliant, yet UNSCOM found and destroyed large quantities of dangerous weapons. I would dare say it was "a joke."

 

Re: A Numbers Game?

But for the rub: Saddam would never let the thousands and thousands of Americans into Baghdad that it would take to alter the U.S.'s course of action. He's letting a few in for propaganda purposes. If these human shields don't realize this, then they are very naive.

 

That's what I thought, too, until I read an article in slate.com today suggesting that because this is a war of conquest (and eventually reconstruction), we're not going to target infrastructure. Concomitantly, civilian casualties may be much lower than we've been led to believe by the liberal news media.

The article is worth checking out.

 

do you have the link dave i'd be very interested to read that.

 

Re: Re: Re: A Numbers Game?

I'd have to say at some point he would stop for fear that he is actually letting in foreign agents.