Human Shields

Rich_L · 23 Dec 2002 at 15:06

Bit off topic but who (if anyone) said this, or something like it?

"Without complete victory there can be no peace"

It sounds familiar but I cant place it

Lupis · 23 Dec 2002 at 15:07

Originally posted by Rich_L
Re-read balddogs statement - i think you missed an important word.... while

You're right, I did.

sedm1000 · 23 Dec 2002 at 15:08

Originally posted by Balddog
Tourist attractions have never been legitimate targets during war so your analogy is totally irrelevent. But not entirely unexpected.

That is just a legitmacy argument - whose validity is dependent on which side you argue for. The tourist industry supports the economy that pays for the army - you advocated collectivism in your earlier post, but then where Iraq is involved a huge double standard exists for everyone it seems.

MindYerBeak · 23 Dec 2002 at 15:14

Anyone defending a military target, even the suicidal idots who do so simply to become martyrs, are considered the enemy. They volunteered to die, let them. There'll be a few less looneys in the world. The only problem is that the arab nations will use this as yet another reason to hate the West.

theleg · 23 Dec 2002 at 15:14

Originally posted by sedm1000
That is just a legitmacy argument - whose validity is dependent on which side you argue for. The tourist industry supports the economy that pays for the army - you advocated collectivism in your earlier post, but then where Iraq is involved a huge double standard exists for everyone it seems.

So we dont go by the established rules of war now? The various conventions? They are quite clear in what is, and what isnt, a valid target during times of war.

I advocated specific collectivism mate, not total. I said that people that support the Iraqi government and their oppression of the people deserve to die. If the tourists were flocking to that tourist specifically in order to support their governments oppressive regime over themselves then your analogy might hold water.

Please show me a double standard.

sedm1000 · 23 Dec 2002 at 15:40

Your use of "support" is misleading. As a consumer, I support the British economy, and government that runs the economy. That does not mean that I endorse everything that the government does. An Iraqi scientist may "support" the Iraqi weapons program by means of carrying out his job, but that does not mean that he supports or condones the actions of Saddam (or even knows quite what his scientific work will be used for).

That the established rules of war are now irrelevant is another argument altogether - the role of UN "peacekeepers/supervisors" and the emergence of non-confrmist terrorist organisations has blurred the traditional boundaries between war and "peace". The Western defintions are ultimately self-serving and no longer universally accepted.

Taking an Iraqi (who soon, even by Western definition, will have have a legitimate case in bombing us), is he allowed to attack any UK installation that aids the government in controlling our people? If civilians are killed is it their own fault for not realisng the validity of the target, be it power plant, radio station, bank etc.?

Rich_L · 23 Dec 2002 at 15:46

Taking an Iraqi (who soon, even by Western definition, will have have a legitimate case in bombing us), is he allowed to attack any UK installation that aids the government in controlling our people?

Absolutely - I have no argument with this - if we were at war with Iraq then so be it - that is the nature of war.

However....the Iraqi in question should then expect the seven bells of **** to be kicked out of his country in retribution, its not pretty but that is the way war works.

Most would say that in the face of overwhelming force the weaker side would surrender but who knows these days...

If civilians are killed is it their own fault for not realisng the validity of the target, be it power plant, radio station, bank etc.?

Picture this scenario - we are under attack by an overwhelming air power, now do you go and stand on top of anti-aircraft guns/military bases/obvious military targets in the hope that the pilot will see you and decide to bomb something else?

I think the definition of 'vital and strategic installations' as tourist attractions/banks is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, yes they could concievably be referring to putting human shields on top of the bank of baghdad but im thinking this isnt what they were talking about.

theleg · 23 Dec 2002 at 15:49

Well done, thats the single most petty and pedantic thing ive ever witnesses on these boards. I thought it was quite clear what I meant in my post but ill add 'actively' if it will clarify it further, just for you.

Ill compare it to the nazis. Those German civilians who simply worked for the nazis to survive or out of fear etc are not who I was referring to. I meant those who actively supported and agreed with the nazi cause. Obviously my statement wasnt quite specific enough.

Im confused as to your last paragraph. What Saddam (?) is allowed to attack in a war with us is not the point. The stuff about who deserved to die was my personal opinion prompted by a direct question to me.

But yes, the same targets would be valid on our side, IMO.

sedm1000 · 23 Dec 2002 at 16:17

Originally posted by Balddog
Well done, thats the single most petty and pedantic thing ive ever witnesses on these boards. I thought it was quite clear what I meant in my post but ill add 'actively' if it will clarify it further, just for you.

Pedantic if you like, but that is the essence of collectivism. Makes it hard to pick and choose.

2blue4u · 23 Dec 2002 at 16:35

Human Shields -

It is nature's way of culling the weak - all part of the evolutionary process. Isn't nature wonderful

sedm1000 · 23 Dec 2002 at 16:39

Originally posted by 2blue4u
Human Shields -

It is nature's way of culling the weak - all part of the evolutionary process. Isn't nature wonderful

Weak? Is that in terms of morals, character or ideology?

I`d venture they`d win out over any member of these boards.

memphisto · 23 Dec 2002 at 16:41

Originally posted by sedm1000
Weak? Is that in terms of morals, character or ideology?

I`d venture they`d win out over any member of these boards.

I'd venture they wouldnt.

sedm1000 · 23 Dec 2002 at 16:45

So how are we going to settle this? I vote we send Baldie to Baghdad to issue the challenge

PurDunamis · 23 Dec 2002 at 16:45

Originally posted by sedm1000
Weak? Is that in terms of morals, character or ideology?

I`d venture they`d win out over any member of these boards.

Prepared to lay down there lives in a stupid, pointless and futile gesture - I'd venture they ain't winning out over me or anyone else any time soon

Rich_L · 23 Dec 2002 at 16:53

Weak? Is that in terms of morals, character or ideology?

For a start, those 3 become slightly irrelevant when a flippin great bomb lands on you.

Plus those are all subjective terms - religious extremists could be classed as having very strong characters and ideology - slightly dubious morals but no doubt they believe they are right.

As far as Im concerned, if they wish to get in the way of fire then so be it - it is their choice. As said earlier - natural selection in action..

sedm1000 · 23 Dec 2002 at 16:57

Is laying down one`s life for the protection of others not one of the great christian/humanitarian/utilitarian deeds? Soldiers are awarded medals for such actions, are they simply being weeded out the race too?

tsunami · 23 Dec 2002 at 17:01

Originally posted by Shockwave
[ Washington has said Iraq is in "material breach" of a U.N. resolution ordering it to declare its weapons of mass destruction, and says it will take military action unless Iraq disarms.

I was under the impression that no direct evidence had been found by weapons inspectors that could support the US's assertion that I raq is in material breach of said conditions.
The dossier filed by Iraq provides no information that could support an allegation of such a "material breach".

I also believe that the UN is not in agreement with the US (and UK) as regards this matter either.

I would agree that there is a very good chance that Iraq is in breach, but without proper evidence and UN backing any attack by the US is an illegal act of aggression. I guess if Iraq was to strike back at the US after their attack then Iraq's actions would be called an "act of terror" or "terrorism" while the US's actions would be the "strike of justice"?

I thought that the US (well President G.W Bush) was intent on winning a war against terrorism, and that Osama Bin Laden was their primary target. They seem to have given up on this and decided that Saddam and Iraq make a very good target instead.
What do they think will be achieved this time that they could not manage last time ?

More people that fought for their country(ies) arriving home with strange symptoms, known as "Gulf war sysndrome" while the military enter a state of complete denial and refuse them the support they deserve ?

More people dying to remove a man put into power and armed by the Western world years ago when Iran was seen as the greatest threat ?

Why does the US, UK and the rest of the western world stand back and do nothing while Isreal targets unarmed Palestinians ?

Will · 23 Dec 2002 at 17:01

Originally posted by sedm1000
Weak? Is that in terms of morals, character or ideology?

I`d venture they`d win out over any member of these boards.

I'd venture that they are lunatics....they will help nobody but Saddam Hussein (in that they will be placed at locations of his choice, and effectively be human shields of targets he does not want bombed), and are liable to get themselves killed.

To me that seems the act of someone with a weak mind, unable to see the futility behind what they are trying to do.

Strong morals (maybe, though helping Saddam is regarded as more morally acceptable than letting *his* targets be bombed?), character, well maybe they have strong character and a strong will because if they didn't they'd have been talked out of this ludicrous idea, ideology, well maybe but to me the ideology of helping Saddam Hussein defend his targets of strategic importance by offering themselves as potential martyrs, in the name of saving innocent lives, seems an odd ideology to me.

Originally posted by Sedm100
Is laying down one`s life for the protection of others not one of the great christian/humanitarian/utilitarian deeds?

But this action of theirs, while intended do as you say, probably won't save anyones lives but those of the people working for Saddam?

If they want to potentially lay down their life and save others, join the red crescent working in Baghdad during any war, not go and sit wherever Saddam tells you and hope a bomb doesn't land on it because you're there...

r1cko · 23 Dec 2002 at 17:01

Good luck stopping those bullets coming from our weapons..

Rich_L · 23 Dec 2002 at 17:06

If these people wish to go and join the Iraqi army, and

'lay down their lives for the protection of others'

then that is absolutely fine - it is their own free will and we should not stop them, but equally well there should not be an outrage if they are killed 'defending' the installations.

Imagine this scenario - USA invades Iraq, destroys Saddam Husseins regime - Iraq ends up under US control/gov't.

Now under which government will the people of Iraq be better off?

Although Iraq is often thought of as a 'desert with oil' it actually has a huge potential as a country which is being wasted- i sometimes despair at the sheer wastefulness of some 'governments' (eg zimbabwe - god help the people living there)