First of all, F*CK YOU too *SSH*LE. You arrogantly stated as a forgone conclusion that the volunteer human shields will be "actively taking action against the coalition forces". Am I to believe that you have powers to foresee into the future?
I hope you all realize that, once inside Iraq, these fools have no control over where they are deployed. Here's a little tidbit from the Telegraph: Fifteen volunteers from the first 200 shields are moving into a bunker at the South Baghdad Electricity Plant in an effort to deter attack by America and its allies. However some of the shields yesterday questioned Iraq's selection of the power plant, after discovering that it is situated next to an army base. Since the shields' first visit to examine their new quarters, sandbags and unmanned check points had been erected around the plant. Asked about the neighbouring Rasheed military base, an Iraqi official said: "Don't worry, it is a small army camp." http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...23/ixworld.html/news/2003/02/23/wshield23.xml These people are doomed. Once the fighting starts, they will be taken hostage. If a satisfactory amount of them aren't killed by Coalition bombs, Sadaam will simply execute a few of them & strategically place the bodies beside some destroyed "baby food factory".
The source of this fact is the UN (UNICEF). And it is you who are blissfully ignorant. Do the google search. Educate yourself.
I saw the article on Google but when trying to open it, it doesn't open up, tells me link is bad or something. Also, those two numbers after the word May are 96, which is year, which in my mind makes this article 6 years old and privy to speculation. So since you are the one that likes proof of topics, I ask you to give me proof that 500,00 Iraqi children have died as a DIRECT effect of the Embargo. Also, there is a little thing called the oil for foods program that the UN supported, but the food money for the food didn't get to the citizens, it instead went to Sadam's palaces. Please try to read ALL the facts before you make such an assanine comment.
And what would you do with POW's? Keep in mind I am talking about the Human shields in terms of POW status, not protestors. What in your mind should have happened with the POW's taken in Afgahnastan. Again, I am not criticizing, just curious.
Once again you are wrong, in one of my statments did I tell I say F*CK YOU, F*CK OFF, or anything of that sort. Your comment should read as: F*CK YOU *SSH*LE, not F*CK YOU too *SSH*LE.
Please explain Saddam's new palaces and weapons or the fact that, in autonomous Northern Iraq, which is under the same sanctions as Saddam-controlled Iraq, no one is dying from starvation or want of basic medical care. But I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation, having to do with evil Americans. Is it not possible that there can be more than one cause of something? Sanctions have never been effective against dictators anywhere because dictators don't care about their people. We know this. Look at Cuba. Look at North Korea. Look at Iraq. None of the leaders ever suffer from sanctions. Before the sanctions: No starvation issues After the sanctions: Mass starvation Did we intend to cause starvation? No. Are we solely responsible for it? No. Was mass starvation foreseeable? Yes (based on NK, Cuba, etc) Did the sanctions accomplish what we wanted? No. Does Saddam bear a huge chunk of the responsibility? Yes. Were we a part of the cause of the starvation? Yes. It's not an either/or situation. We implemented sanctions that did not cause the downfall of Hussein as we had hoped and did contribute to mass starvation problems for the people of Iraq. Was that the intention? No, but that's the result.
I understand what you're saying. However, starvation has not an issue in Northern Iraq. The blame lies 100% with Saddam.
Three words... Assumption of Risk. Any loss of innocent life will be unfortunate in a war if it comes...just because they are US citizens does not make their life any more or less valuable, but if war does come, and innocent people plant their butts in front of strategic sites, they are going to have to be held responsible for the risks they take. It sounds like they are setting up at non-military sites, and that does make sense to be protecting places vital to the survival of the general population, but if war comes, and the Iraq propoganda machine starts, I wonder how safe these shields will be from the Iraqi government? I wonder how many of these shields of nonmilitary sites will forcefully become shields of military sites.
Yeah it is kind of odd, that you'd find anti-aircraft batteries on the roofs of hospitals, but I wouldn't put it past them.
Would it not behoove the people of Iraq to forcefully take Sadam out of a place of power since sanctions were not effective?
This time around we are going to try our utmost to avoid destroying civilian infrastructure sites (electrical, water, communications, bridges/roads/dams, etc). We have other means to temporarily disable them without blowing them up (EMP / microwave bombs, carbon filament munitions, etc) that we will use against such targets if deemed necessary. If at all possible, we will try to leave them alone altogether so such civil services are not disrupted at all, but it is doubtful that we will be able to do so. Still, the damage to civilian infrastructure should be recognizably absent this time around. Therefore, those human shields guarding civilian sites will likely be safe from our forces (though not necessarily Saddam's - they would make great hostages in an endgame situation). Those guarding military sites and sites politically important to the Baath Party are screwed, though. They will not deter us from leveling those sites, and will likely just get themselves killed.
Would it not behoove the people of Iraq to forcefully take Sadam out of a place of power since sanctions were not effective? That's much more easily said than done. He's ridiculously well-guarded -- we can't even find the guy. That was our other goal -- we more-or-less promised the Kurds that we would help them take out Saddam after the war, and then basically left them to get slaughtered by his forces. That was probably our biggest mistake in 1991, although I'm not sure what would have happened if the Kurds took over and attempted to rule Iraq as a minority population.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm Just some quick quotes: The Secretary (Donald Rumsfeld) seems unaware of the requirements of international humanitarian law,” said Jamie Fellner, director of Human Rights Watch´s U.S. Program. “As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States is required to treat every detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. The United States may not pick and choose among them to decide who is entitled to decent treatment.” And Prisoners of war (POWs) are entitled to further protections, commensurate with respect for their military status as soldiers. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions provide that prisoners of war must be quartered in conditions that meet the same general standards as the quarters available to the captor´s forces, e.g. the U.S. armed forces. In addition, POW´s prosecuted for war crimes must be tried by the same court under the same rules as the detaining country´s armed forces. In the current conflict, an Afghan POW could not be tried by the proposed military commissions, although they could be tried by an American court-martial.
First of all I would like to see proof of your statement : no on (in autonomous Northern Iraq) is dying from starvation or want of basic medical care. I was unaware that the Kurds were that prosperous. Just to be clear. Are you saying that today starvation and basic medical care are no longer a problem? Or post Gulf War this has never been a problem? Are you also saying that the other areas in Iraq don't count? It is my understanding that the coalition forces during the Gulf War bombed Bagdad's water purification plant and further contaminated the water supply with spent uranium shells. Iraqi citizens died for lack of clean water to drink or the medicine to treat them after drinking contaminated water. And finally, are you saying that Saddam is 100% responsible for the Gulf War and whatever consequences the Iraqi people suffered afterward? I know we had part of this discussion before. I do not believe Saddam is 100% responsible for the 500,000 Iraqi children dying. I do not believe that the US/UK are 100% responsible for the children dying. The US/UK are using the economic sanctions to force a regime change in Iraq (direct statement from then Secretary of State Madeline Albright). This is a policy that has not show itself to be efficacious. See Cuba. BTW, I do not see us Americans as evil. I do see us as having no more than a superficial knowledge of world affairs and a zero attention span when these matters come up.
I think most everybody agrees that it won't be easy, but for the sake of the Iraqi people, should Sadam be removed...even at great cost?
Doesn't Saddam get any credit for this? It's almost like it's okay for him not to cooperate and when people die as a result you blame everyone but the guy responsible. Saddam's desicions are what are killing these people. It's almost as if you guys think he's a victim. I know that you will say that he's not a victim and that he's evil, but please, place some blame on him.
