Human shields: Terminally stupid, clinically insane or...

[Mythor]

Full topic should be, "Human shields: Terminally stupid, clinically insane or conscientious, brave defenders of a righteous cause?"

Just wanted to make one last poll about the imminent war (I think it's a foregone conclusion at this point - Saddam won't destroy his weapons and won't leave Iraq)... This question came to me as I wandered past the TV which was showing a clip of some batty old woman proclaiming, "It's not irresponsible, it's the only right thing people can do!" in reference to people criticising those who are choosing to offer themselves as human shields for Iraq.

To me, the people who are doing this are stupid, insane or just have a very poor sense of judgement. What they are saying is that they believe people are going to attack Iraq, and are therefore offering to die alongside the people of Iraq...... why exactly?
That Iraq is even letting them into the country to serve as human shields should be enough to give people some indication of their intentions. They quite clearly have every intention of allowing, and possibly forcing, civilians to act as shields for their military. And not for the first time, either.

I just hope their families haven't inherited the same character flaws, or we'll probably see lawsuits against the various governments suing for wrongful death after they get killed.

[unfrufru]

the idea only has merit if the sheild is nikki webster and anyone whose been on popstars.

callme crazy but i think they're exaggerating a bit when they call them sheilds. they should call them human pate.

and is it just me or did anyone else get a weird image when they said our troops were going in first. remember operation blackies from south Park???

[Mythor]

I think they like to think of themselves as shields, because I think they like to believe that they will stop attacks on Iraq.
If they've chosen to get in the way of bombs, they only have themselves to blame. :lookarou:

[Alisso]

On the up side, these people probably won't survive to breed.


I can see why they'd want to do it, but I really don't see the point. A human shield is only a shield when there's a reason why the people in it won't be killed. Otherwise they're just more cannon fodder. And the way wars are fought these days, the US soldiers will be miles away and pressing buttons to launch attacks on Iraqi people, so they're not going to see the westeners trying to be shields. The Iraqi people will still die, and the "human shields" will go with them.

If you're not bright enough to follow that logic through...well, let's just say I have a fairly practical attitude to Darwin's "survival of the fittest".

[hails]

Originally Posted by Alisso

On the up side, these people probably won't survive to breed.

agreed. it's senseless. that's all. :lookarou:

[Stripes]

even though i'm a slightly over the top anti war person, i agree about the uselessness of it. i mean, i'm sure the people involved belive it's right an good but it doesn't do any good. the war will kill them. america is not going to refrain from dropping bombs because a handful of australian/american/british etc people are standing underneath them.

on another note, half the people from the human shield have come home because they're mightily pissed off. they went over there to protect the iraqi people and saddam hussein has been using them as protection for his army bases and his supply stores. their 'tour guide' turned out to be a 4th degree army official (suprise suprise). the other half are staying there and abandoning the 'guide' but if they want to sit as a tank rolls over them it's their problem. i think that humanitarians can do more good alive and working.

[baby G]

I've been attending the anti-war rallies and developing quite a firm stance on the no-war issue that has divided our society. Nevertheless, I beleive that these people have major problems. As people have said before - there is no purpose in them being there, Saddam uses suvillans to shield his military bases and I don't think that the US army or Aus Army will stop all proceedings for one crazed lunatic with a death wish! If these people want to make a difference, instead of making a "moral stand" they should be campaigning actively, researching the issue, holding events in their own country and persuade more people. They won't look like matyrs when they die..they will look like idiots. I could not sit back and listen to them speak at the rallies... all I was thinking was, how can they add to the bloodshed, what hypocrites they will be.

My two cents.

[Danny Boy]

The only time I've felt truly worried in this whole situation was tonight, when I saw the footage of a 3LO (ABC Melbourne's AM station) interview with John Howard this morning.

Our Prime Minister looked very regretful, almost on the verge of tears.

If it's because he knows almost nobody in Australia is behind him, that's ok, but if the reason he looks like he's about to cry is that he has realised the repercussions of his stupid and hastily made decision, I feel very unsafe.

[Mythor]

There's quite a lot of support for him, actually. Don't be misled by the protests and the people trying to talk up the numbers and so forth.
It's referred to as a "silent majority" for a reason.

[Sam]

The term shields has been taken literally by most of the public and by some of the humans invovled. From what I can gather it was never meant to be taken this way. At least the celluloid image of that young guy standing before the tanks in China before he was run over will always remain prominent, the human shield aka some woman, run over by a bulldozer somewhere proves absolutely nothing except the uncaringness of some members of society. The worst thing is, is this human suffering will change absolutely nothing.

[Munchkin]

I'll give you that in Iraq the 'human shields' get misused but I don't think it's stupid when their intention isn't so much to stop them bombing but to stop them bombing water treatment plants, hospitals, orphanages etc.

[Mythor]

Originally Posted by Munchkin

I'll give you that in Iraq the 'human shields' get misused but I don't think it's stupid when their intention isn't so much to stop them bombing but to stop them bombing water treatment plants, hospitals, orphanages etc.

The only reason they'd bomb hospitals or orphanages (and possibly the water treatment plants) would be if Saddam has put military facilities in, next door to or under them. If he's done that then it's not going to matter if there's a few more civilians in the way, either it will be a target for the planes and tomahawk missiles or they'll leave it alone until the ground pounders get there. A few more civilians either way is not going to be a deciding factor...

[Puppy]

Maybe I'm an American ass-licker too, but this is my view on the hospital/water treatment/orphanage thing

I'll sooner believe Saddam bombed them himself to get 'sympathy' from the Anti-war people and humanitarian places, before I'll believe America bombed them on purpose.

Saw on ch7's NBC coverage, that Israel has ordered it's civilians to start carrying gas masks...

Call me stupid, but America attacks you, so you gas Israel? *blink*

but back to the poll question, I believe that these people are stupid... if the roles were reversed, Saddam wouldn't hesitate to kill you.. imo

[Beckslee]

Originally Posted by Puppy

I'll sooner believe Saddam bombed them himself to get 'sympathy' from the Anti-war people and humanitarian places, before I'll believe America bombed them on purpose.

what, the same america, who were dropping cluster bombs in afghanistan that looked suspiciously like food packages?

[Munchkin]

So is Australia officially at war?

Bush had to send a letter to Congress, anyone know what the deal is here?