Human Shield Admits He Was Naive

Interesting but already debated.

Obviously not debated enough.

Wow. Just... wow. GOOOOOOD stuff.

.

So, now instead of a naive 20-something saying war is never justified, we have a naive 20-something who's ultra gung-ho for war.

The common point here in both is that he is naive. Maybe after a while he won't see the world in such black & white terms.

It's easy to protest a war, when it isn't YOU that is being oppressed.

Incredible read.

I saw a clip from an anti-war rally this past weekend, and the protesters were all chanting, "no justice, no peace." What does that really mean in the context of the current hostilities with Iraq?

Given the choice between war and peace, I'm for peace.

The graveyard is very peaceful. Choose.

You know... I think half the protestors really don't even know what the war is about...

*de-lurk*

anyone "with half a brain" should be able to figure out that protesting this war and defending the Iraqi government are not the same thing.

the world is not as polarized as the marketing messages from anyone with something to sell wants you to believe. (eg, Bush & Co, or the media) this guy is falling for the same trick as so many.

that said, i personally decided not to attend the marches after the war actually started. not because i suddenly agreed with the war -- it's still the deformed child of greed and arrogance -- but because i recognize that some good may come of it. at least it seems more practical and constructive at this point to see how it goes and hope for the best than to continue to fight something that's a done deal.

anyway, civil disobedience at this point is just going to piss people off.

i'd just love it if every word from Bush's mouth were true and un-manufactured and that the moral calculations behind this violence is flawless and noble. but i've not yet been lobotomized. nor am i a sheep in one herd or another. i don't have to be "for us or against us." of course i'm f*cking FOR US. but i disagree with the policy and don't trust the people calling the shots.

so check it: there are in fact people who

- support the troops, hope they're precise and come home safely
- support the oppressed Iraqis, hope they're left alive and not screwed when we leave
- think Saddam Hussein is a bastard and that hell is too good for him
- think Bush & Co. are bastards and are driven by nothing even approaching the noble words that spew from their marketing machine
- think this military action is morally repugnant
- expect that it will ultimately be a source of more pain, not less, for the oppressed and poor in the world
- hope to be wrong about that and accept that some good may come of it


these views are not mutually exclusive.

'kay. sorry for the rant. have a nice day. carry on. *re-lurk*

By protesting the war, you are supporting Saddam's regime. Not saying it's your purpose. Not saying you are doing it willingly. But it is support for Saddam regardless.

hmm.

if you look at a roadmap, you may notice that there is often more than one way to get from one place to another place.

you may agree on where to go for lunch, for example, but you may disagree with someone about how to get there. some people will have their own objectives, their own agendas, in choosing their route, or when they want to go. just because you disagree about the route or the timing, doesn't mean you don't like the restaurant.

(hm. just realized that i *am* a bit hungry ... )

Nevertheless, the quickest conclusion is drawn fairly easily by anyone. Even that Iraqi taxi driver...

"Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?"

Anti-war or "peace" protesters, no matter where they are protesting or what their intentions, are seen as supporting Saddam's regime.

.

He didn't realize that the Ba'ath regime was horrifically brutal and enjoyed the hatred of many many Iraqis???



Maybe human shields are complete idiots after all.

Not only is anti-war not the same as pro-Saddam, but it's not even pro-status quo. Many many of us have been protesting Saddam for decades (especially when he was getting our money).

It's the method of effecting regime change that is highly questionable.

Just because I don't want Saddam running Iraq doesn't mean that I want the US to run Iraq either.

hmmm i dunno who are bigger idiots, the humanshield-hippies who think they could trust saddam or the pro-war people who think they are liberating iraq and will install a democracy.

and that all this evantually will bring peace and stability in the entire region...

i wonder how long before we see a confesion from rumsfeld or bush.

.

How would you have it done?

Seems to me that I've been talking about it for months. I'm not sure why I think you'll pay any attention to it now. Especially since you seem to have already decided the issue for yourself. But here goes nothing:

First of all, who was hurt by the post-war sanctions? Saddam?

It's amazing to me that the same people who tell us that Saddam abused the Oil for Food program to build his WMD program are the people that most violently supported the status quo of the sanctions. Some of them even profited personally from the status quo.

Now we're talking about reforming the program to put the UN in charge of ALL of the money instead of handing it over to the Regime. Why the hell couldn't we do that 12 years ago?

Secondly, the same people who seem to tell us that Saddam is universally hated and despised don't seem to think that he can be overthrown.

Thirdly, the people who seem to think Saddam is magically immune to overthrow forget that he would have been overthrown 12 years ago if it hadn't been for them. They prevented his overthrow when they could have facilitated it.

Saying that only a US invasion could oust Saddam is to ignore the fact that Saddam has clung to power only by the direct manipulation and bungling of the West. People tend to think that the US has somehow been isolationist about Iraq for the last 20 years. This isn't just untrue, it's the opposite of the truth.

by some, yes, apparently. and i assert that that is an inaccurate perception, and that it is disrespectful to base your actions or words on that assumption. it would be just as disrespectful of me to assume that any random person attending a pro-war rally would support the unqualified maiming or murder of Iraqis. it's just not that simple.

more importantly, it's not useful to over-simplify and label people as "with us or against us". unless you hope to manipulate someone, or manipulate your own ego. it is, however, entirely consistent with the current tone of our mainstream culture. which is sad. and i'm certainly guilty of playing along with it, too.

but polarization is useful in, say, sports and hunting and video games. it's fine for entertainment. this situation is not here for our entertainment, despite how the media and government package it. hard to believe, i know.

we both want to eat at the same sushi bar, but have different ideas of how to get there. if you're not interested in working for a solution that makes us both happy, that's fine. sucks for me if you're the one driving. but don't assume that just because i disagree with your choice of route, i hate sushi. what's the point of that?

oh nevermind. i feel better for having eaten.

I would not sanction a war that I would not be willing to fight in myself. Would you?

Are you so convinced that this is the right thing to do that you would put your life on line for it?

At least these human shields had that level of courage in their convictions.

I must admit I have had far more leanings towards their point of view. I am neither convinced that the US and the UK making war without the world's support is healthy for any nation.

Not evn the poor Iraqi's who are having to suffer even more.

What for? Do you honestly know?

If you are so conviced - go and fight and I will respect you.

If this was the war against Hitler then I would be signing up. However, I am not convinced that Saddam is anywhere near the threat to world peace, nor the war against him so high-minded as the war against the Nazis.

War is painful and nasty - no matter how our media spin it and this one is turning out to be no different. Killing children is always just plain wrong - but it goes hand-in-hand with making war. War must be the last resort.

I am not convinced that we had exhausted all other avenues in this case.

thunderous, you're just playing the blame game.

You haven't answered daimoni or dtriska on how you affect regime change without force.

Yes, Bush has made a diplomatic mess. Yes, politicians have been inconsistant with their policies. Yes, the U.S. has made horrible past decisions in this region. Blah, blah, blah....

If you believe Saddam needs to disarm and he needs to comply fully with the UN then how, pray tell, are you going to make him do it?

After 12 years of sanctions, UN resolutions, punitive military strikes, an increasing buildup of US and UK troops on his borders he still refuses to cooperate. What is the magic pill? What action short of this war is going to make him see the light?

You've changed the target again, like most of the pro-war side of this issue. They asked me about ousting Saddam without invading. Now you're asking me about disarmament without invading.

I can hardly blame you for mixing the two. Hell, that has been the administrations game for over a year now. If we confuse all of our security, political and economic goals with each other, it becomes harder and harder to sensible about a solution other than throwing the military at it.

If our goal is to prevent Saddam from being a threat beyond his borders, I agree with most of the world that the UN and inspections should have continued backed by the threat of war. It still might have come to this, but the difference would be global solidarity instead of global protest.

If our goal is ousting the Ba'ath regime, it can be accomplished without invading. It just requires some finesse and patience. The Oil For Food program must be revamped to place the UN in charge (like the US is talking about doing now, 12 years late). That is essential to getting the Iraqi people out from under the heel of starvation and poverty so they can begin to think about getting out from under the Ba'ath party. If Saddam is as widely hated as we think he is, we should be able to encourage and empower Iraqis to challenge his rule. If the agents of control (police and military) are put in a position where they recognize that the regime is doomed (because popular dissent is overwhelming and comitted), they will resist orders to crush dissent and will stand aside and let it happen.

You might recognize this strategy. It's been on the news for the last few days. I'm just saying it can be done by feeding, clothing, and empowering Iraqis rather than by invading and bombing.

In my previous post (the one you call the "blame game"), I was merely pointing out that every excuse that has been offered for why Saddam can't be ousted by Iraqis is being offered by the same people who have taken deliberate steps to undermine the Iraqi people and have ignored every opportunity at weakening Saddam.

The status quo won't oust Saddam. But to suggest that the only alternative to the status quo is an invasion and occupation is beyond clueless.

The point is moot. The war has started. Whatever opportunities we had have already been squandered. Now all the eggs are in the military basket. It's quite an adventure and anyone who pretends they know how it will all turn out isn't credible. The predictions range from whimsical to doomsday.

Some of my fears are already being realized. At any rate, the current policy won't really be tested until the formal war is ended. In 1917, it only took the British 3 days to take Bagdad. Some say it was all downhill from there.

I came in late and didn't read the whole thread. Sorry, but I don't think it matters mixing these issues because from a practical viewpoint the ends will be the same. If Saddam's regime is eliminated then disarmament will follow. Unless you're idea of removing Saddam means just replacing him with his son or a similar authoritarian leader?

The goal is not just making sure Saddam isn't a threat. That's too nebulous. These are specific goals and much easier to agree on. The goal as stated by the UN is full disarmament and full compliance with UN inspectors.

While your strategy is noble I think it's too little to affect real change. It's a a modified version of more sanctions. I'm not expert on the political use of sanctions but it seems pretty apparent from their use in numerous places in the last 20 years they have done very little to affect REAL change and have had severe consequences to the civilian population. Plus, as you say, we're trying a much more dramatic version of that now and the Iragi's don't seem SO willing to lay down their arms as easy as the media would have us believe. So how effective would a slower more subtle approach be?

Maybe patience and finesse would work. Patience worked against USSR. But do we really have 50+ years to wait this out? Sept 11, I believe, has forced the urgency to deal with these problems. We are a BIG target now. We were just resented before. Now terrorists groups don't seem to fear taking us on. In fact there is a certain logic to it if you're in their shoes. If he wasn't thinking of it before, Saddam is more than willing to work with terrorists now that he realizes that he's in our sights.

I'm also not necessarily pro-war either. Although I can see how you'd think that. I think I'm being more of a pragmatist, based on the UN's stated goals.

Well, I guess I should also qualify what I said with "it might not work".

In a nutshell, the international community has only 2 concerns when it comes to Iraq. (or at least this should be the case)-- 1) security 2) humanitarian.

If we restructure the sanctions (like Bush says he wants to do for the reconstruction) and the humanitarian crisis was resolved, it would be up to Iraqis to decide their government. If it turns out that Saddam has enough support to rule, so be it.

He shouldn't be allowed to threaten any other nations and the world shouldn't let Iraqis starve or die of easily treated illnesses. Beyond that, it's really none of our business.

I believe both interests could have been better served without resorting to the current situation. Not that it matters any more.

Like I said, the success of this adventure will be measured in the years to come not in the casualties of the shooting war.

I love these kinds of posts. Not only did I not state that I was for this war, I also get to slap someone down with Godwin's Law.

I don't know, but I'm sure someone other than the US could have moved on this.



I don't think he can be overthrown. Neither, it seems, do the Kurds, the Shiites, etc.



I don't know who this "they" is, so I don't know who it was you're saying prevented Saddam's overthrow.

You bring up a topic I've been wrestling with for a while. The whole idea of humanitarian reasons for military action.

I'd like to think we've learned something from the Holocaust in that we wouldn't stand by and let that type of murder take place anymore. Maybe that's just being a Monday morning quarterback, I don't know.

It seems like we took a step in the right direction in Kosovo, missed it in Rwanda. Iraq ( and North Korea for that matter) seems like a perfect example of a despot who is a serious danger to his people. Hundreds of thousands murdered, militaristic campaigns that has left almost a million dead. (Iraq-Iran war). Saddam is bad news.

Not looking for rationalization for this war but it doesn't seem like the WORST reason to add to the list.

How do you determine when too much is enough? I'm really dubious of the UN after this episode and the U.S. has a mostly isolationist tendency...

you could have a 1000 iraqis talking about the evils of saddams regime, and liberals still won't believe it because Bush was the one who actually decided to do something about it..

want to talk more about Iraq? visit my website (see sig) and post up comments in the blog.

One of my best friends in Sweden was from Kurdistan. Believe me, I know how SH is an Evildoer�. But what was done then? Nothing, except trying to pin some of the things(Halabja) on the Iranis, giving up the location of Irani troops so SH could gas them, and not to mention giving them the technology needed for gassing the people.

The question is why now, why this way and why without international support. And don't even try to mention the coalition of the willing. I've talked about it before.

Is over 40 countries not support Logic? Come on now. It's not the US against the rest of the world like some want you to believe. Really, it's not.

You agreed that what he did and perhaps still does are horrible things. You implied that he could have been removed long ago. I agree...I wish he had. But, I ask why NOT now? You sound cynical...like there are other motives behind what the Bush administration is trying to achieve in Iraq. I don't believe there are...but let's entertain that idea... Will not the Iraqis have benefited from our getting rid of Saddam anyways?

Plus, there are about 45 countries who are on our side...more than the Gulf war.

It's not a question of whether or not he should be removed. It's a question of who should do the removing and through what means.

Despite every attempt at covering their tracks, this is still considered by most of the world to be an unilateral act of aggression. We can debate the legality of it til we're blue in the face, but the world won't judge us by our intentions.

The riots have started. The guerilla resistance has started. Saudi's have offered a cease fire plan. The formal diplomatic front against the war is starting. Obviously whatever we've done to justify this thing to ourselves has NOT convinced very many others.

And please. Don't bring up the "coalition". It hurts your cause more than helps it. The administration is embarassing itself by continuing to insist that the "support" of Eritrea, Malaysia, Portugal, Bulgaria, Estonia, El Salvador, Columbia et al means anything to anyone.

Anway, i'm not trying to dredge up the should or shouldn't we argument. We already are so it doesn't matter. I'm just pointing out that despite our own justifications, this is still a staggeringly unpopular decision in the world. We're going to have to deal with that and it's probably just starting.

People asked me if there was another way to oust Saddam. I've emphatically stated for years that there is, but every chance has been squandered and we've resorted to this extreme measure. It's academic now. We'll never know what might have been.

For being so concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about the war, I find it interesting that you dismiss the international coalition that the Bush administration has garnered by saying:



Hypocritical if you ask me.

Anyways, what's right is not always popular and what's popular is not always right.

Please publish the list of the first Gulf War coalition and then the list of the current coalition. See if you can identify what the substantial difference is between the two.

Saying that they compare in any way economically, militarily, or diplomatically is nothing short of a lie.

You should also note that I was making the point that right or wrong (it doesn't really matter now that it's started) we will have to deal with the popularity or unpopularity of the decision. You might feel warm and snuggy about us making the moral choice, but that doesn't mean that what the rest of world thinks won't matter. It will.

If the current diplomatic rift grows any worse, it could actually lead to economic and political isolation for the US. Trust me. That matters. It matters a whole helluva lot.

.

Actually, the lack of food and clothing would promote an environment where Saddam's regime might be overthrown. As long as the citizens of Iraq are not suffering - they are satisfied with Saddam.

.

After a quick google search I found this from the Taipei Times :



All I'm saying is there are more countries in this coalition than in the first gulf war. Take that for whatever it means, but that's not my point. My point is that we are doing what is RIGHT. Not what everyone else things is right.




I guess I would just disagree. First off, I don't think it would ever go that far. The world needs us too much. However, if it ever came to that...honestly, I think the world would suffer greater than the US for severing ties with us. Call me arrogant, but if we were cut off from the international scene in whatever way, we'd get along just fine. We could buy American-Made products, we could keep the insane amount of foreign aid that we hand out. Come to think of it, we may be better off in many ways...

So higher numbers means more moral righteousness? Dubious.

No matter what you think of the policy, you can't honestly say that the "coalition of the willing" packs anywhere near the economic, military or political clout of the Gulf War coalition. It won't change the rightness or wrongness of the war for you to at least admit that.

Right or wrong, this action does NOT have the same support as the Gulf War did. We can perhaps question why that is the case, but I don't see how you can deny the reality of it.





I would agree with you if it weren't for the massive trade imbalance. The truth is we buy way more than we sell. It's been that way for years. There are fewer manufacturing jobs in the US than anytime since WWII.

I tend to agree that right now our critics probably won't take things far enough to create such an economic rift. But it's not because they want to buy American products, it's because Americans buy their products. We consume more than we produce in terms of goods.

I also take exception to your characterization of US foreign aid. The US spends less on humanitarian aid as a percentage of budget than just about any major power. The numbers are big, but represent a very very very low priority in our budget. Also, the bulk of US foreign aid is military.

Those are the slight exceptions I take with your argument but I do tend to agree that things won't come to that. At least, not unless something really dramatic happens. I was merely trying to illustrate to you that what the world thinks does matter. It's fine to take a stand and lead from the front, but we can't simply ignore world opinion. It's obvious to me that the administration is trying very hard to bolster support (with questionable success) which tells me that, even if you don't think it matters, they know it does.

No, and that was exactly what I meant when I said:



You said:


There are more countries. That's all I'm saying. Economic, military, or political clout? Who knows... There are more countries than in the Gulf War.



Either way, they need us. And they may get mad and huff and puff. But I doubt seriously they would ever do anything to harm any relationship between them and the US.



I suppose it matters in the sense that some people will be critical of a war simply because we're the US. The more countries we can get on our side, the better it looks to those who are against the US. I will maintain the fact that deep down it really doesn't matter who's with us. Saddam must go, period. It's been long enough.

I'm no history buff, but from what I understand many countries wanted to appease Hitler. Unfortunately millions of casualties had to happen before action was taken. I don't want something like this to continue to occur. We should have taken care of this earlier, yes. (I just now heard on the radio that Iraqi forces have put a tank inside the waiting room of a hospital...sheesh! This guy is demented!) He has to go ASAP.

I think we're on the same page though. Maybe there are a few paragraphs in between, but the same page...

What does this mean?

In this particular case, the choice is the peace of the graveyard or war. If the Iraqis are really against their current leader, they'll help us oust him, and get another option for "peace" other than what they've got now.