I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam

[Ornery]

=/= total discreditation of the anti-war movement.

This particular piece is about human shields. Do human shields =/= anti-war movement?

Human shields are morons, don't you agree?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: yllus
The sentiment is true but this is 99% likely to be propaganda.

 

[novon]

This situation is not black and white, Yes there will be a benefit to going to war, Sadaam will be removed. But don't think the US is on a moral high ground here, if to remove Sadaam and help out the Iraqis was their only intention it could have been done covertly and without a major war, and 12 years ago, with the whole world behind them. This war at the cost of thousands of innocent lives will directly benefit the Administration's pockets and ruin America's reputation world-wide. Peacekeeping by war is illogical, and peace is not the administrations intention. America has had a track record of destroying other countries to benefit itself. This war is no different.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Ornery
=/= total discreditation of the anti-war movement.

This particular piece is about human shields. Do human shields =/= anti-war movement?

Human shields are morons, don't you agree?

There are certainly more productive ways of expressing one's feelings about the war. Getting blown up standing in front of an oil refinery is really only going to hurt the morale of our troops, IMO.

Anyway, what I was getting at is how pieces like this one have been used by those in favor of the war in an effort to undermine the anti-war crowd. I have been honestly amazed at the venom directed at protesters by the media and individuals.

 

[dquan97]

good article!

 

[Ornery]

I do NOT see this paper leaning one way or the other.

Most of Iraq is for getting rid of Hussein. Most of our country is for forcefully disarming him. Of the people who don't, they are almost entirely on the left. (What a coincidence!) Of that group you have morons blocking streets and progress. Human shield type dimwits. None with a valid alternative other than leaving our troops sit in the desert for years while Blix fumbles around. The rest of the clueless think Blix could come through without our troops sitting there.

Undermine the anti-war crowd? Like Mr. Pepper, it's a house of cards with no foundation.

 

[Shade4ever]

Originally posted by: novon
This situation is not black and white, Yes there will be a benefit to going to war, Sadaam will be removed. But don't think the US is on a moral high ground here, if to remove Sadaam and help out the Iraqis was their only intention it could have been done covertly and without a major war, and 12 years ago, with the whole world behind them. This war at the cost of thousands of innocent lives will directly benefit the Administration's pockets and ruin America's reputation world-wide. Peacekeeping by war is illogical, and peace is not the administrations intention. America has had a track record of destroying other countries to benefit itself. This war is no different.

Novon, you have a point: we could have assassinated Saddam, if we'd put real effort into that. However, I would like to point this out: If America, as many refer to it, "the world's last remaining superpower", should start using assassination as a tool again, what kind of message does that send to other nations? If we do it, and someone comes along and kills our president, can we blame them? I am all for removal of Saddam, but I think that there is good reason to do it the way we have chosen, even if it means more short-term loss of life: giving new lease to political assassination is probably not a road we want to tread.

And if you weren't implying assassination, then I apologize for misreading your subtlety. 😉

 

[tcsenter]

Wise people change their minds when faced with truth. Ignorant people are stubborn in their ways regardless. Moonie, which are you?

Exactly, or IOW, we must be right because our heart is in the right place, war is always bad, no matter how f-cked up our facts and logic.

Its pretty simple; someone who we have every reason to believe typifies the antiwar mentality and philosophy, a well educated and worldly person as antiwar beatniks seem to go, got a taste of the terror and misery he would have foist upon Iraqi's people because he was too God damned busy trying to find fault in what America was doing than to consider what might have been right about it, more or less because it was 'fashionable' to do so among his peers, and was at least honest enough to admit he had been very wrong.

I'm sure that some bien penchant antiwar and anti-US activists would have sat and argued with the cab driver: "You can't possibly want the US to wage armed conflict in your country because that would make my position wrong, and I'm not wrong, damned you poor stupid Arab! DOH! Now look what you made me do. I'm supposed to be here 'protecting' you, I'm here to be the voice of reason, and you made me yell at you. Don't you see, I know what's best for you because I grew up in the Bay Area and went to a university on scholarship. I've never worked a day in my life. You are poor and suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because of American Imperialist bombs. You can't possibly know what's good for you, because I don't agree with it."

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I do NOT see this paper leaning one way or the other.

Right, but how many links to articles have we seen here on AT focusing mostly on what got broken by protesters, what fringe socialist group supposedly funds all protests, etc, etc, etc. The media is (as usual) not seeing the forest for the trees. The sentiment of most protesters is simple: There are better ways to deal with the Hussein issue than a largely unpopular and unsupported (from a world-wide standpoint) war. Period. No spitting on troops. No blanket condemnation of anything W does just because he's W. No pro-Hussein sentiment.

Most of Iraq is for getting rid of Hussein. Most of our country is for forcefully disarming him. Of the people who don't, they are almost entirely on the left. (What a coincidence!) Of that group you have morons blocking streets and progress. Human shield type dimwits. None with a valid alternative other than leaving our troops sit in the desert for years while Blix fumbles around. The rest of the clueless think Blix could come through without our troops sitting there.

The thing is, there's really more than one issue here. While very few will argue that he's anything other than a thug, why was it seemingly so imperative that the US disarm him right now? You have to admit, Powell's report to the UN was anything but compelling. A few radio transmissions, simulations of yet-to-be-seen mobile labs, ties to terrorists more complicated than a West Virginia family tree, etc. Certainly evidence that Saddam is up to no good, but nothing posing a large immediate threat to the world relatively speaking. You may have noticed in the weeks leading up to the war that North Korea was stating quite plainly that they were going to restart their nuclear weapons program (which they have), and the 10,000,000 dead of government-induced famine alone since 1995 also makes them by far the greater "opressive regime". All that, and Bush himself has repeatedly stressed that diplomacy is the solution to the N. Korea situation and yet war is the solution to the Iraq situation?

 

[Ornery]

...imperative that the US disarm him right now?"

Too expensive to leave our troops idling there forever, and he wouldn't have complied with inspectors if our troops weren't right there. W's assessment that over a decade is long enough was correct. We shouldn't even have bothered with the UN at all this time. That he did, was more than enough compromise IMO.

I have a feeling our "diplomacy" with NK is going to be pretty damn hard line when the time comes. We'll see who blinks.