1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Human Shields Head To Iraq !

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Frapp, Jan 25, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frapp

    Frapp Icon

    525
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Frapp, you are very concerned about the children who have died as a result of Saddam's actions. What about the children who will die once our bombs start falling. That's what these people are concerned about. I don't see that they plan to shield military targets. They plan on shielding people. Are you afraid that we won't be able to bomb the children of Iraq if they are shielded by Westerners? This would be a terrible setback, wouldn't it. We might be forced to find another solution to this problem. Of course it would help if we would start finding the right, non-violent, solutions decades before we get to the point of destroying nations we no longer have a use for.
     
  3. Frapp

    Frapp Icon

    525
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
    Your statement makes little since, so any reply is difficult at best.

    You support the fact that I feel it is deplorable that Saddam has murdered children of his own country, then a few lines later you act as if I would be disappointed if we are unable to bomb these same children :confused: :confused: :confused:

    Perhaps you should take an aspirin, sit back a moment or two and then attempt an intelligent rebuttal :shrug:

    You seem to take ones statements and turn them around to suit your mentality, much like the preachers here in the south do with scripture that is clear, but twisted around by them to support their ideas of bigotry and hate :(
     
  4. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,839
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Saddamn is well kown for his use of innocent civilians as human shields. He also knows if their presence in or around a strategic target does not deter an attack on such a facility, then he will have a ton of propaganda value resulting from their deaths.

    The world will not then consider that he, himself, was the one responsible for these unfortunate deaths.

    The U.S. and its allies (ally?) will probably succeed in their strategic goals, but we can never win the propaganda war. Everything we do (or don't do) will be turned against us.
    Although

    I support the planned US actions against Iraque should they become necessary, but any military action will not end quickly. One of my concerns is that this war may last much longer than anyone thinks. The Soviets were in Afgahnistan for 10 years before they marched back to Russia in defeat.
     
  5. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,440
    77
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    Actually, a specific event comes to mind. During the last gulf war (~March, 1990), we were accussed of bombing a "civilian" bomb shelter. However, we insisted that we had bombed a military communications post.

    Not sure of the exact outcome, but it wouldn't surprise me if your friendly neighborhood Iraqi bomb shelter for civilians also houses military equipment. Why do that? Simple.... nobody likes bad press, especially when we're bombing "young, innocent children."

    IMHO, I doubt that we would have a problem with actually invading Iraq. The biggest problems would be what we do afterwards, and how we maintain good relations with the other Middle Eastern countries. True, Iraq may be the country at the moment, but what about it's next door neighbor, Iran?
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Frapp, I believe my post made perfect sense. You are concerned about the children that have died as the result of Saddam's actions. But what about the children who will die when we start bombing? What about the children who will die when it comes down to house to house fighting in Baghdad? What about the children who have died today in many countries ruled by despotic tyrants which don't have oil? Since they don't have oil they may not be lucky enough to possibly have WMD and sponsor terrorists. Are we going to do something about their leaders next. Many children died in the US today because adequate medical care was not available. Who will take George Bush out of the picture so the poor children of this nation will quit sponsoring terrorists and provide for its own citizens?

    We are on the brink of war today because we made bad decisions decades ago. We should never have provided Saddam with weapons and power. Whether or not we go to war, if we don't make better decisions this time around, we are going to be back doing it again in another decade. As Z'Loth wrote, if we do go to war what's going to happen when its over? Will we leave another tyrant in charge? Will we leave Iraq in devastation as we did Germany after WW1, or be there to rebuild it as we did at the end of WW2? The way we left Germany at the end of WW1 assured us of WW2. We need to start making better decisions.
     
  7. alfbinet

    alfbinet Godfather

    303
    0
    May 18, 2002
    I am curious to see if anyone has an answer. What was the last year we considered Iraq a friend and supported them? Was it that long ago?
     
  8. Dgenx321

    Dgenx321 Legend

    212
    0
    Jan 1, 2003
    Mid 80's I think..
     
  9. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Icon

    844
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Hooray! Plane loads of future Darwin Award winners headed to Iraq! And who says there's no good news anymore? This ought to strengthen the gene pool a little.
     
  10. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Looking forward to waging war on the women and children of Iraq, are we?
     
  11. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    No need to look forward to it. Here's what we're already doing and have been doing for the last what, ten to twelve years? From a 1991 Washington Post story.
    http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0226-06.htm

    "Twenty eight JSOWs were fired by Navy aircraft in the in the Feb. 16 attack, along with guided missiles and laser-guided bombs. Pentagon sources say that 26 of the 28 JSOWs missed their aimpoints."
    So much for smart weapons. This was seven months BEFORE 9/11. Are we to believe we have become more selective and accurate since then to avoid civilian casualties?

    Of course with accuracy like this, perhaps the "human shields" may not be in as much danger as it might first appear, especially if they chose to shield intended targets.:rolleyes:
     
  12. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Icon

    844
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Bogy,

    You liberals know perfectly well that the women and children of Iraq stand to benefit the most from Sodamn Insane being deposed. Why you choose to coddle (if not deify) this dictator is beyond me.
     
  13. cnsf

    cnsf Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,068
    0
    Jun 6, 2002
    I hope they all have wills.....
     
  14. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Ya know, maybe I'm confused here. Certainly the women of Iraq are no less oppressed then the men. But last I checked, Iraq was one of the less strictly Islamic regimes in the area, much less then Iran or Saudi Arabia and even probably Kuwait. In fact it is not an "Islamic regime" at all with Saddam's Bath party basically secular but having its roots more in Christianity more then anything else. Just like George Bush or any other politician you can name though, Saddam is not above appealing to the beliefs of a majority of his population.

    While there's probably an Islamic cultural bias in Iraq just like there's a Christian cultural bias in USA, I don't believe women are officially prohibited by the state from equal participation in public or private life.

    Also, I have just gotten done stating that it would be best for all concerned(including probably himself) if Saddam would be removed from office. I'm not as concerned with the end game here as I am with the way we are going about it.

    After 9/11, we were witness to one of the rare instances in history when virtually the entire world felt and expressed sympathy for the USA. In less then eighteen months we have wasted the opportunity to reach out to the world and the world to reach out to us. The hunt for Osama appears to be on hold, his most likely hiding place being our new found ally Pakistan. And we appear to be squandering this unprecedented opportunity in favor of settling old scores.

    While George may have handled the domestic aftermath of 9/11 adequately(with qualifications), his foreign policy is the same inept bumbling mess it was before 9/11. The Israel/Palestinian situation is worse then it's been in perhaps twenty years and without this flashpoint, we probably wouldn't of even been subject to 9/11. Nevertheless, our foreign policy for the last two years has pretty much been to ignore it and hope it will go away. After 9/11, that policy has shifted ever so slightly to ignore it, if it doesn't go away, destroy it.
     
  15. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Icon

    844
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    My reference to the "women and children" of Iraq had nothing to do with Islam (fanatical or otherwise), but rather them being starved to death by their leader (who, since the sanctions were imposed in 1992, has gone on to build 48 new Presidential Palaces at a cost of over 10 billion dollars). The men are less likely to be in this category since many serve in the Iraqi armed forces and are at least getting fed.

    Jon, I am befuddled by the rest of your post. You agree that Saddam should be taken out in principle but you don't want Bush doing it because it will look like he's settling an old score? If we can all agree it needs to be done then let's friggin do it already. I will never understand the liberal desire to make the motive somehow more important than the action or the outcome. Iraq, and the entire Middle East, will benefit from Saddam being removed from power. What is more important beyond that?
     
  16. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Yes, us silly altruistic liberals believe motivation is important. We have this terrible habit of questioning whether the end justifies the means. I know conservatives don't like to bother themselves with such insignificant details.

    After all, why should anyone care if civil liberties are surrendered in the name of "security"? If you've got nothing to hide, why would you object to a random cavity search or Homeland Security reading your e-mail and tracking your purchases? We're all much safer now, aren't we? So what if capital punishment targets minorities or sometimes executes innocent people? Surely the families of victims feel much better and can get on with their lives after the state injects poison in the veins of the convicted one, especially if they're black. Revenge is good and worth the cost of a few innocent poor people, isn't it? The state should promote faith in God by randomly sticking it in our pledges, printing it on our money, sponsoring religious displays on public property, and using tax funds to support faith-based organizations. Most of us believe in God anyway, don't we? And those faith-based programs are much better then their secular counterparts, aren't they?

    That's just the short list. We are embarked on a course that appears will lead to a war where thousands of Iraqis will be shot, blown up or buried in rubble, and maybe a few thousand Americans and our allies too. Remnants of cluster bombs and other ordinance left over from the Gulf War are still killing innocent Iraqis today. We seem to be doing this in large part out of a sense of frustration. We can't get Saddam to do what we want him to do so we're just going to have to kill him. And then everything will be fine, won't it?

    But what about the "end". Getting rid of Saddam is not the end. It's just barely the beginning. Iraqis will probably not take kindly to US occupying them for ten to fifteen years or more. Free elections could easily lead to another Islamic republic like Iran. Our best option(cheapest and easiest) may be to simply install another strongman(our thug) to control Iraq for us. Then we can just forget about them again and go on our merry way, can't we?
     
  17. Dgenx321

    Dgenx321 Legend

    212
    0
    Jan 1, 2003
    Japan didn't like us occupying their country either, but they got over it..
     
  18. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    This oil argument was used in the Gulf War. As far as I know, I don't see any American companies drilling in Iraq. In other words, it's not about oil, so stop using that tired, old excuse.

    Now, if you were to say that Germany and France had financial interests in Iraq, I'd agree; hence their sudden change of stance.

    What a lot of you seem to be missing is that the Middle East is not only a different area of the world, it's practically a different world- this coming from a guy born in the Middle East and half Persian.

    The leaders react completely differently to threats and to peace than Westerners. Saddam proved that by kicking out inspectors in the 90's. He knew nothing was going to happen; and nothing did. Does he care about sanctions? No, he lets his people suffer.

    Now remember what all these inspections are about, they are to confirm that Iraq is following the cease fire guidelines from the Gulf War. And, according to Mr. Blix, Iraq has not done what they promised to do. The UN voted 15-0 to allow for retaliation if the inspectors came up with that answer. Granted, the specific punishment could be argued.

    There is no smoking gun and no one was looking for one.

    The Iraqi populace (in Iraq and in the US) has proven time and again that they want Saddam ousted and they would cheer the US doing it.

    This is a war which the world did back; but now some Euros are getting cold feet. Although Eastern European countries along with Australia and Britian are still with the US.. as are a couple of Arab countries.

    Remember, this is all based on the UN resolution after the first Gulf War. Iraq has not abided by them. That is what this is all about. It has nothing to do with a personal grudge or oil.
     
  19. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Well, they didn't get over it, they got to run their country. Hell, what do you think ended WW2 and prevented WW3? Occupation. Regime change.

    The allies occupied and changed the regimes of Japan and Germany. They helped them rebuild and in a short 40 years, both were economic powerhouses.

    Wow, imagine if the same could be done for Iraq.
     
  20. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,839
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Attention, Human Shields: Please have your tickets ready. The boat to Iraque is boarding now!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page