*DAMN R6 Forum

Well I still think we should kill him >:(

this is basically a spam thread, you could have posted this in snipeys one.

Try thinking before you say something.


Why do you think that Mr. Wuggles?
Would you like to back that up?
How can you demand the murder of someone of whom you have only heard 3rd person hearsay?
How do you know he is worthy of death?
Do you simply believe everything you're told?
What have you been told that makes you think "we" should kill him?
Who is "we"?
Why are "we" supposed to do the killing of him?
Who decides whether Saddam Hussein should be killed?
Do you?
What would we be cutting him a break from?
Why shouldn't we cut him a break?

Well, if we had signed onto the International Criminal Court, we could have a formal way of trying and convicting him in a civil, legal, and internationally agreeable way. But who needs due process when you have American vigilante justice...

Don't give me that shit Tasty. Do you not believe that smaller weaker countries would use the ICC to take potshots at Americans becase that is what we are, Americans?

Also, what makes you think that Saddam would adhere to anything such as the ICC (btw, nothing prior to July can be prosecuted by them) when he is out torturing and executing Coalition troops and his own people.

Saddam is a tyrant that must be taken out of power, one way or another - that is the only way this conflict will end.

i think the question is why the US didnt put an end to his regime back in 1991?

oh, i forgot, it might have something to do with heavily increased weapon sales from america to iraqs surrounding countrys after 1991...

the problem with usa is, everytime they say they do it for the human rights or to help suppresssed people some other people find out that they gain millions of dollars from it... in every single conflict since WWII.

more than a coincidence?

That is something that bugs me.  The US sells more military equipment as the next 5 countries combined...our history of the who we've sold/given it to is essentially a who's who list of our enemies or international problems.  Perhaps we might think to stop arming these people so we don't need to disarm them.

Yes we should kill him. There is only one problem though. There is an unwritten rinternational war rule. You cant kill the leader of a country, prime minister, president etc.

There are no rules in love and war. . .

As long as we're directing bombings at Saddam personally, trying to "decapitate" his regime, it seems very hypocritical to object at some of the unconventional Iraqi combat tactics, and their treatment of POWs.

ugh its pretty obvious loudnotes that your anti-consevitave.... i mean sorry if i offended u with my idea but the only way saddam is going to co operate is to stop opressing his ppl and he refused so he needs to be punished

and also its quit obvious he has ties with north korea
and thats REALLY bad

Mattster, you are retarded, please refrain from posting.

Bondo, the French and Russians have armed them more than we have. Also, all that we are selling them is second rate equipment (during the Iran/Iraq war), while lining our pockets with their money.

Wuggles, cut it with the spam, I have deleted many posts already.

Wuggles, you have no justification whatsoever for anything you say, and that was loudnotes point. Instead of addressing his point, you merely pointed out that he disagrees with your viewpoint and proceeded to support none of what you said before. Also, it is not obvious that there is any link at all between Saddam and N Korea, that is retarded.

Sin, obviously Iraq did not sign onto the International Criminal Court. That doesn't mean that a world majority couldn't use it to prosecute him. No, I don't believe that the ICC would be used to take potshots at America simply because we are America. I could see it being used to take potshots at military atrocities though, and I don't think we should be exempted from such treatment just because we are America.

Sin, I wasn't refering specifically to Iraq, I was talking about on a global scale.  And how new or effective a product really shouldn't make a difference, a weapon is a weapon, whether new or 50 years old.  Besides, nuclear bombs are more than 50 years old, hardly cutting edge.  We may not have been the primary armer of Iraq, but we did contribute, and we did contribute to Israel helping their UN violations that they do on a daily basis, we did contribute to Al Queda, we did contribute to Fidel Castro.  I'm not saying we alone are responsible for the danger they pose, but we certainly aren't innocent.  I take issue with selling weapons or providing military equipment in general.

Loud, as far as I've heard, in the course of war it is actually legal to target political figures...or perhaps just the commander in chief types who actually have say on the battles.

Still, there is something to be said about the targeting of so many non-combatants being rather distasteful.

One thing I was confused by is that the news people said there was a distinction between POWs and Enemy Combatants.  I am not seeing what the difference is (other than that POWs are protected by the Geneva rules but Enemy Combatants aren't)  It would seem to me that once an enemy combatant is taken prisoner, they are then a POW.  Unless they are saying since this isn't technically a war (no declairation of war) that it isn't necessary to label them as POWs.  If that is the case than Iraq isn't breaking any rules as long as they aren't catogorizing the "enemy combatants" as POWs.

Iraq will act ruthless, their country, their homeland is being invaded, fuck international rules. This is no game to them, this is in many of their views weather they are an independent people or not.

Hell if the Americans invaded Russia I would brutally torture any invader I got my hands on, even if Zhironovsky or Stalin were my leader. I would decapitate them, wrap their heads in a ziplock bag, and mail it to the US general. Sick you say? This is how people act when their homeland is being invaded. Geneva Convention means nothing, especaily in this "unauthorized by the U.N." War. To cite the Geneva Convention imbecilic.

?That's easy...Pez, cherry flavored Pez?

You bring up a good and important point Cossack...While we (Americans) see the bombs dropping on TV, people dying on TV, and Arab hostilities on TV...Iraqis are seeing the bombs drop in person, seeing the dying in person, and thus are being hostile, in person.  If we were being attacked and people I loved were being killed even though they had nothing to do with the war, you can be sure as hell I'd want to fight, even with Bush as President.

Cossack, you say that, but you truely wouldn't know what you would do if you had a Stalinesque type leader. We can all make these broad statements, but if Stalin or someone assocatied with the power in Government were to say...rape and beat your mother, and torture your family, I doubt you would take up arms for Stalin unless you had a gun to you or your families back.

I highly suspect that once the Iraqi people realize Saddam is done for, they will uprise once again like they did after the Gulf War...but they just need assurances that Saddam and his army will finally be wiped out.

Also, if another country were to invade your country, you could only pray that the invader used precision weapons and surgical strikes like we are doing right now.

The type of precision targeting that targets markets full of innocents?  I wouldn't be to thankful for that.

Ask the millions of Russians that died who were in the Gulag, or their families executed what they would do for Russia? They do not fight for Sadaam they fight for Iraq. Rommel did not fight for Hitler, he fought for the fatherland. I can safely say if anyone invaded my country I would be that pissed off and that angry, they would not need to threaten my family. Only time will show who is right. I stand by my word, if my country were invaded, I would fight the invader regardless of who my leader is, and so would you sin. You would fight anyone who invaded America. You would fight that invader marching through the streets of California and bombing your neighbors, regardless of who your president is.

Cossack - that is true, but Rommel wasn't afraid of Hitler unlike say the common Jew.

Bondo, you sound like Iraqi TV. To think that we targeted a marketplace is preposterous unless Saddam himself was walking through it. I know of two marketplace bombings, and one was definitely caused by teh Iraqi SAM's, while the second one was still under investigation.

If we wanted to kill Civilians and"target" them, the city of Baghdad would be nothing more than a giant crater in the ground.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

A very professional, daily-updated site with the latest in civilian death estimates.

http://dailykos.com/

Concentrates more on deaths in our armed forces.

We may not be trying to kill civilians, but 500-600 dead is certainly nothing to scoff at.

The point wasn't that we intentionally targeted innocents, it was that we aren't as precise as we claim.

Also, if you think Saddam can only get support through force, why would Iraqis from other countries with no reason to do so, go INTO Iraq to fight the coalition.  Because they want to fight for their country.  No one is forcing them to do it...well, no one but the coalition.

Tasty, how many of those body counts were created by Saddam and his armed forces? We know of at least 50 in the market bombing that were caused by his own weaponry, and all the civilians he is shooting in and around other towns such as Basra.

As for the statistics about JDAM weaponry, that is misleading because those stats were taken from open field operations, not urban bombing. The fact of the matter is that most of the shrapnel is absorbed in the intial blast by the building that was targeted, that is why you see mainly targets destroyed with nothing happening to surrounding buildings.

Bondo, you probably want to qualify some statements, because that looked like you said we were targeting them. Sure, not all weapons 100% accurate, but I would rather be using these than conventional weaponry.

As for the minority of Iraqi's returning home, they are because of what Cossack was saying in another thread - they view their country is being invaded, and they fight for their land and heritage, not for Saddam.

Doesn't change that they are fighting the coalition without being put under duress by Saddam which was a claim being made...that he gets defense through coersion.  This being filed under if they are an enemy of my enemy they are my friend philosophy, anyone fighting the coalition are allies even if they hate each other.

Sin, the sources the website uses are listed plainly for all to see. There are a variety of US, British, and international sources that are all used. Since they have different figures, the "Maximum" & "Minimum" death counts are created. Civilian deaths are civilian deaths, and I don't think you can make the argument that the vast majority of them aren't being caused by the presence of coalition troops in Iraq.

Tasty, we do not know what the difference would be with or without coalition troops there because we don't know how many people he and his army killed daily.

For his army to shoot civilians in the back inflates that number significantly - the way that statistic was presented was if the coalition troops had gone in and killed all of them.

I totally agree  >:(

Sin - everything I've seen suggests that the majority of those deaths are from US attacks.

Yeah link me to something about his troops killing civilians AFTER the start of the war, I haven't heard anything of it. For one thing, it doesn't make any sense. Why would he kill potential soldiers? Also, how would journalists get ahold of civilian deaths that weren't connected with the US? They are "embedded" in the US army, so I don't see how deaths that happen outside of US military action could be covered by them.

The women, elderly, and children are not potential soldiers. I guess you didn't see it on TV beore it was pulled, but Sky News showed civilians getting mowed down by Iraqi gunfire as they tried to leave Basra - and I doubt that was it.

Even the guy who helped rescue our POW told tales of the civilians who waved at passing US choppers and planes getting shot by the Fedayeen just because they waved.

Also, the Baghdad market bombings were probably included in that number, and it was already shown that Iraqi SAM's came crashing back to the ground and caused it, not Coalition airstrikes like they have tried to pin it on (all but one of these bombings has been totally confirmed to my knowledge).

Last but not least, I bet human shields are counted in those civilian counts, and they shouldn't count - anyone who stands near a military target intentionally should themselves be considered a target, and if not a civilian death caused by the enemy (in this case Saddam).

I think human shields should count. If people are willing to martyr themselves for their country, then we should at least have the respect to count them among the civilian deceased, even if it makes our troops look more careless than they really are.

I find this article to be an interesting look at Iraqi liberation and media coverage of this war - and its relevant to this conversation: Liberation or Libation? (http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=3390)

Tim Wise has written some great stuff on the war, you can read the rest of his war articles through the links on the side of this article.

omg did u guys see the footage on tv of a rocket bounced off the ground and hit an iraqi tank?? mahahahahhahahah!!!! :o

tasty, the only thing a human shield is is a soldier that doen't have a gun pointed at you. they knew that they had a very good chance of dying. they expected to die. you could make a case that they wanted to die. you average civillian doesn't. your average civillian doesn't intend to walk in infront of someone who is armed. they stay the hell away.  now, explain why behavior like that sould allow them to be treated as a 'civilian casualty'

(yes, i know that sounds cold an uncompassionate, but i believe that anyone who doesnt have the common sense to get out of the way of a man with a gun aimed through you doesnt deserve to live)

I've said it before, every death in this war can be attributed to the US.  If there was no war, the Iraqis wouldn't have missles misfiring or be killing civillians who welcome the US.  Consider them hostages and Saddam is holding a gun to their heads telling the US not to take a step closer.  When the US steps closer he pulls the trigger.  The death is thus a result of the US stepping closer even if they didn't pull the trigger themselves.

Which brings me back to my original point.

Forget the numbers, it's indisputable that the war has caused the deaths of some civilians who would not otherwise have died.

Human shields really aren't civilians, since they aren't Iraqis as well, but it's not fair to count them as combatants either.  

Sin and Brain -


It's really a shame that their lives were apparently meaningless.  How do you feel about tree-sitters who chain themselves to trees in forests to prevent logging?  Do you believe that by placing themselves in the path of a bulldozer, they forfeit their right to life?  

Whether you agree with their cause or not, you have to respect the "shields" for making a statement, foolishly or not.  Frankly I think it's sad that our government took no real notice of them.  

Human shields: they are American citizens, they are non-combatants, they gave no aid or comfort to the enemy, and they were murdered by the government they sought to preserve.

Loudnotes, if it is us killing human shields or them shooting down our planes and killing our pilots, I would kill them anyday of the week.

This isn't like the tree huggers who save trees, this is about people putting their lives on the line to protect an offensive weapon. If there were a sniper int he tree shotting at us, and a tree hugger trying to save the tree, I would say lets take down the tree - just because they are trying to make a point or a statement isn't our fault if what they are trying to protect is dangerous to us.

Ah, but what if their point is that it isn't actually dangerous to us?

What if the sniper in the tree has no ammunition in his gun?  Or he's pointing it elsewhere?  

The human shields don't enable Iraq to shoot down US planes unless those planes happen to be bombing Iraq anyway.  So if the bombs don't fall, everyone wins out.  That, at least, is their rationale.  And I still find it hard to imagine the world post-war in better condition than it was at the start.

Anyone out there have any glossy views of the future?

Loudnotes, what youa re saying to is amount to saying that if we weren't int he war, no one would die. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't pertain to this argument.

I said that the sniper was shooting at us, like the Iraqi SAM and AAA sites are against our pilots. However, these human shields decide to place themselves next to these weapons thinking that we wont attack if they are by it, and they are wrong. We value the lives of our military much more than we do of any human shield, and they seal their fate by trying to hopelessly protect something they know we would destroy.

As for your comment about post-war Iraq, once the dust has settled and reconstruction begins, it will be muchbetter than anything Iraq was under Saddam Hussein. Just the humanitarian facts alone should prove this - 60% of Iraq was dependant on outside sources of food to feed themselves (think along the lines of Oil for food prog.) under Saddam. Contrast that with the relative modern lifestyles of Kurds living in major population centers and there is no doubt that post war Iraq will be better than anything that happened under Saddam Hussein.

to reply to your first post loud. they have forfitted their right to common sense. they knew full well what they were doing, there for they cannot be treated as a total innocent. i have little sympathy for those that take knowingly risky actions and then get injured or killed. they knew the risks, they took those chances, they lost the gamble with fate.

if these people happend to be forced to live there, or were being somehow forced to do this, i would have a very different view. but from the info i have, this is my opinion.

the second posat. you're streching alittle there loud, just so sin  is wrong. i consider a sniper someone with an intent to kill and the power to do so.  if he is aiming elsewhere or is with out ammo to begin with, why would we be concerened with this spot in the first place? the milatary doesnt just go blowing people away hen they come out of their houses in the morning just because they came out of random house b that has no stragic importance what so ever.  by changing the fact that the sniper was not a threat, you changed the situation, and thus invalidated sin's post

i apologize  for any incohesiveness, it's late here

My analogy was that Iraq is not the threat some people perceive it to be.

Also, you didn't answer whether it's ok to bulldoze a protester.  Maybe they've forfeited their common sense, but does that make it ok to kill them?  Whether they're justified in being in Iraq or not, is it acceptable for these citizens to be killed by their own government?  

Do you believe in capital punishment, Brain?  Aren't these people effectively being sentenced to death for stupidity?  It doesn't seem quite like a suicide to me.

You still refuse to directly tackle what I gave you Loud because you know that I am right. But if I play along with you to what you have changed it into, then killing a peaceful protester protecting something like a tree does not revoke his right to life.

If however, like I was saying, if there is also a sniper in the tree shooting at us, and the protester decides to still protect it because he/she thinks he is on some kind of high ground, then they are forfeit. They forfeit their right to the title of citizen by protecting a military target, and they inherit the title of soldier or target.

Anyway, you keep on pushing your anti-war sentiments, but that has nothing to do with the analogy I made. The Iraqi positions that they are defending ARE a grave threat to our pilots, and by surrounding these positions and "defending" them with their bodies, they endorse what the Iraqi's are trying to do. This action makes their lives forfeit because they are knowingly and actively taking a role in the war - against the Coalition. There are numerous forms of protests, hell, they could have joined all the other people in the streets out of a combat zone marching against the war. But the fact is that they didn't and they died foolishly for their beliefs.

I'll leave the Capital Punishment alone because it was directed at Brain, so fire away Brain  ;D

You're still assuming that the war is a given.

These protesters are trying to continue the argument that the war should not be underway in the first place.  They are shielding Iraqi defensive positions, not offensive batteries.  The theory is that those positions hold no danger to the US unless the US chooses to attack them.  Ergo, maybe the US would then reconsider its attack.

Obviously, I'm not in Iraq right now and I think it's foolish to belive so strongly in the US government.  But don't you think that government should have some pause before it kills its own people?  And there is no law anywhere revoking their citizenship or rights simply because they are standing somewhere inconvenient, peacefully.

Again, the only reason the sniper was pointing at us was because we aimed a cannon at his tree.  Earlier, he was either disarmed or unagressive, at least towards the US.

Oh and by the way, be patient Sin.  You're not right just because I don't get to all of your points immediately.

couldnt agree more...

first off, how could war not be a given right now? are you implying this is one big hoax, al la wag the dog?

secondly. if it is a defensive battery, fine. but the moment it fires it has taken an offensive action(from the batteries point of view). that menas that it cannot be anything other than a military target. and if you are going to go back to the it 'wouldnt fire  if we werent here' argument, i'll can just fall back to the fact that we wouldnt be be here if the they had just done what they were told.  we can dance around placing blame all day long if you want to loud. the fact remains that there are TWO sides here. they both must share the blame.

you are right, there is no such law. however they still made a stupid decision in  light of obvious facts (people with lots of guns and bombs are coming, and may hit this target) that may not forfeit their citizenship, but it damn well forfeits my sympathy.

about the bulldozer and the tree. yea, i think these people are not exercising common sense, but a tree is not an AA missile battery now is it?. and if you want to bring the sniper back into this, i think i'll play the same card that you played on me. i'll get my own sniper and shoot him.
problem solved
besides what's to say that sniper would not have shot at us given enough time?

and finally, yes i do believe in capitol punishment for certain crimes. the system could be better, but i agree with the concept. after all, there are just some things that humans do to other humans that no amount of time can atone for (although if we could come up with an earth based punishment system like tauterus [i think that's the word i need] i would be more in favor of that)

i apologize  if this seems cut short, i have a class i need to attend

Even though the war is now a reality doesn't suddenly make it a just war.

People still protest the war.  It need not be a given.  Likewise, people try to quash debate in the name of supporting the troops.  That's rubbish - the war doesn't become any more righteous simply because it's underway.  The troops have my full support to come home asap.

And a defensive battery that offers return-fire is in no way offensive.  Even here in the United States you can be acquitted of murder if you are acting in self-defense.


Again, what the protesters are saying, and we've debated previously, is that "not doing what they're told" doesn't give the moral authority for us to kill people.  While they are responsible for upsetting the US, thus responsible for economic sanctions, occasional bombings, and the inspections, they are not responsible for the US invading their country and destroying life and property at will.  

Also, who's to say the sniper - remember that he's poor, malnourished, with antiquated equipment and little reinforcement - would NOT have shot at us given enough time.  Containment has worked for years, and Iraq was certainly in no position to make any hostility against the US at the start of this war.

The reason I brought up capital punishment was this - even if you dislike the protesters and believe in the death penalty - US law does not justify it.  So why hasn't the government had any pause in violating its own law?

The closest offense I can rationalize for the shields is "accessory to murder" which does not carry the death penalty anywhere in the US.  The certainly aren't Iraqi civilians, they aren't US or Iraqi troops; they are US citizens and should be accorded all the rights and priveleges thereof, no matter how stupid they may be.  Perhaps they deserve life imprisonment.  But the government has no right to kill them simply to advance it's own aims.

More specifically, the aims of the executive branch.  Congress has never declared war, and their force authorization last fall was constitutionally questionable at best.  Where are the checks and balances?

loud. bush has 90 days before congress needs to declare war, even without the authorization of force.

and i'm not calling this war righteous. I'm calling it what it is. a war. unglorified and in all it's horrors

after re-reading your post i'm getting  the impression that these are Americans standing in front of the missile batteries. Is that correct? Not that it would change anything. In fact,  I think it would lower my opinion of them, because they would have a better comprehension of what the military want's them to do (no language barrier).

about the sniper, need i remind you that an animal is most dangerous when in a corner and wounded?  so nobody can say for sure that he would or would not have shot. that is a moot point. the sniper was there, he could kill, and history showed that there was a potential the he would kill again.  that is why there are preemptive strikes. yes iraq was not in a condition to fight back, but who is to say that a month or even a year down the road they wouldn't be in a position to threaten the US?
the government may have ulterior motives(hell they do have ulterior motives) but they do have a clear reason to start doing what they did. it may not be morally right, or even sound, but it is a reason.

i need to go to a test now. more to come later

Iraqis aren't wild animals, they're people too.

Yes I'm talking about Americans being the human shields.  But I'm not sure what you meant about the language barrier, etc. . .

Ah you're right.  I'd wonder what we'd do if the war were almost over but not quite at the end of the 90 days.

And as for right, I'm asking if you think the US government has any right to kill its own citizens if they're merely standing in the way.

i'm drawing a connection between the iraqi government (sadamam's in particular) and the wounded animal. not the iraqi people

language barrier means thet they have little chance to misunderstand the intents of any units attempting to attack an instalation, as well as any orders given to them by those units.

while it may not seem right, these people willing went on to the field of battle. if they are shot by a unit attempting to complete a mission and they were blocking the way, so be it.

LoudNotes, acting as a human shield or being a jouranlist in the midst of a war is really stupid and whatever happens to you shouldn't be held as anyone others but your own fault. It's like throwing yourself in front of a car and blaming the car for what happened to you. Also, certainly you can't think that the coalition forces are targeting the human shields on purpose.

Kami - I would liken it to standing in the middle of a hypothetical freeway.  This freeway is wide-open, there are no cars when you arrive, and you are clearly visible in plenty of time for an oncoming car to stop.

It's still a bad idea to put your life in the hands of the car drivers - especially given the way many people tend to drive.  But if one of them hits you, isn't it their fault?  Does it make any difference if the car is say an ambulance, for example?  (i.e. US troops supposedly "saving" lives ultimately)

Does this analogy work for all of you?

thats very true kami,
Protestors know what they are doing, they know the risk, and my heart isn't going to bleed for them if they get killed in a war zone or get arrested. If you knowingly go into harms way, your life is now in your own hands. Many of the 1337 republican gaurds wouldn't die for saddam, or to prevent the US carrying out this "horid war."

Likewise, I suppose you feel no sympathy for firefighters who die rushing into a burning building to save someone trapped inside.  And certainly no one should mourn the life of a secret service agent who takes a bullet for his president.  Just because others are cowards doesn't mean those who stand up for what they believe in should get no respect.  Seriously, that makes me sick.

Whether you agree with their position or not, you ought to feel pride in their patriotism and mourn them just as much as any fallen footsoldier, even if you must privately question their sanity.

Oh, and you misspelled "horrid"

There is a striking difference between the two actually,

A firefighter risks his life to save a person from a burning building.

These people are risking their lives to ultimately keep a dictator in power who has killed well over 100,000 of his own people. Knowing that the Army only targets the Iraqi military, and you are willing camp out next to them in protest, you are assuming a risk. We work towards saving the lives of our troops (some of whom are my friends), and these people will protest that, then tough.
A firefighter can save a life, these people are risking their lives so that ours might be compromised, notice the difference

Well regardless of whether you agree with their objective, they are still risking their lives for what they believe in. Maybe they believe they are working toward saving the lives of their countrymen. Maybe they want to die a martyr. Maybe they are misguided. Either way they are courageous. Just like when Bill Maher said the 9/11 attackers were courageous. Just because they were horrible people with retarded beliefs that had been tricked by a despotic warlord doesn't mean they weren't acting courageously. Courage comes from within; if they are risking (or giving) their lives for something, regardless of it's legitimacy, they are acting courageously.

I'll post this here as well; http://www.soopergrape.com/halabja/humanshield.html (http://www.soopergrape.com/halabja/humanshield.html).

LN, I see your point with that analogy but if you see a car driving in the distance, are you stupid enough to just stand there like a monkey, idly watching the car speeding towards you?

It's been a long tiem since I have agreed with most of one of Tasty's posts, but I do agree with what he posted above.

As for the whole analogy thing, it is obvious to me that Loudnotes is side stepping the issue at hand to promote his anti-war views and twisting arguments to make him look like he is correct (comparing Human Shields to Firefighters is offline and not even close to being similar). I largely agree with Brain and Kami's rebuffs so I won't repeat them. Jeb also does a good post on the firefighter issue.

Tasty stated it better than I.  Still - "Whether you agree with their position or not, you ought to feel pride in their patriotism and mourn them just as much as any fallen footsoldier, even if you must privately question their sanity"

But why do you quibble over the analogies?  A human shield believes they are saving lives just as a firefighter would.  They believe they are preventing the civilian casualities war would cause - not to mention US and Iraqi military casualities.  Again - The idea of a human shield is to prevent war in the first place.  The US troops would not be endangered by letting them be - and not firing on the Iraqis.  Killing Iraqi soldiers is not equivalent to saving American lives.  Keep in mind the Iraqis were in defensive positions, which I've already been over.

The shields die to save life; firefighters die to save life.  Obviously they believe Saddam's continuation in power would cost fewer lives than war.  Whether that's correct or not doesn't change their intention.

And Sin - what on earth does it mean to twist an argument to make it look as though you're correct?  What kind of argument can you make that makes you look wrong?  Anyway, I've explained just now why the analogy is not offline at all.  Just for the record - don't write me off as anti-war.  I've explained that too - I disagree with the US pre-emptive doctrine and I generally try to avoid killing people, but that doesn't mean I'm a pacifist.  World war two was justified, in my opinion.

Kami - I personally think human shields are crazy and have little regard for their own safety.  But their cause is still a good one in my opinion, no matter how much an Iraqi taxi driver wants a new government.  Hell, I want a new government in the US but I wouldn't support a war to bring about one.  Especially not if that war killed my family. . .

Also, no, I'm not that stupid.  The shields are, but that doesn't make them any less worthy as human beings.  Any a lack of common sense doesn't indicate a flaw in ideaology.

I've stayed out of this argument so far because it's just too stupid sometimes.  Some bleeding heart ultra liberals who have probably never talked to a live Iraqi in their lives are beyond reason.  But it's too frustrating to read some of the stupidity.  For example:


The idea of a human shield is to defend a military target you twit.  War has already started, so if their purpose was to prevent it, they failed and should have gone home.  You are just so off base with that statement.  Human shields are trying to protect MILITARY ASSETS with the threat of so called "innocent lives" being lost.  Well they aren't innocent.  They've picked a side.  They may as well put on a uniform.  

And human shields are used at stockpiles of weapons, command and control centers, etc, not just "defensive positions".  

And don't compare them with firefighters.  A firefighter's goal isn't to risk his life to support the military.  It's not even to risk his life, even if they have to all too often.  Their goal is to stop fires and save people WITHOUT risking their own lives.  

Compare them with the Secret Service, better, but they aren't "civilians" either.  They put themselves there, and don't fall into the "innocent civilian" category if they are killed.  Just like these "human shield" idiots.  The reason why I don't call the Secret Service idiots is that they try not to let anyone get killed, just just martyr themselves.

And Darwin is again proven right, and the average IQ in the gene pool has probably gone up another point.

I could rip you apart on that 'average IQ in the gene pool' comment Bucc ;)
I won't though since I agree with most of what you just wrote.

We need more bombs over there in iraq things are gettin tricky :(

excuse some of these extremly dumb comments i made becuase they werent mine.... maniac is screwing with my account >:(

you twit, beyond reason, too stupid, and bleeding heart really added a lot.  Maybe staying out of the argument wasn't such a bad idea?


You may see it as defending a military target - they see it as trying to prevent bloodshed.  Just because the war has started doesn't mean they're not still trying to prevent it.  A war can be stopped, and the shields hoped their lives would be incentive enough for that.  Since enough people think like you do, their lives are apparently meaningless.

And Bucc - picking a side means they're shooting alongside the enemy.  Just standing there doesn't do anything except add a marginal amount of guilt to US war plans  - that you have to rationalize away by making their lives insignificant.  A non-combatant is a non-combatant, no matter where they're standing or why.  Would it make a difference if they were hostages?  Why?  A life is a life.  They shouldn't be targeted, period.

And if a firefighter chooses to risk his life, and he does it to support anything, he is no different.  Sure they don't want to risk their lives, but when they do so that changes things.

Furthermore, I told you I thought they were idiots too.  That doesn't mean their lives are forfeit.  

Finally, I'm not really sure why kami. . .and Mr. Wuggles congratulations on your insignificance.

oh thx your a real charmer... love to see u as a politican (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/icon_bluh.gif)

I always thought that bleeding heart was somewhat complimentary. Telling someone they are is like saying "hey, you're a genuinely sensitive person, and I'm not!"

Wuggles sorry I didn't see your post about Maniac. . .

If he really has access to your account, why don't you change your password?

You can be sensitive...and then you can be bleeding heart. Bleeding heart = Extreme. Extreme = Pussy. Therefore Bleeding Heart = Pussy.

Ok...... lets hear that in a more reasonable text that someone can understand.... ???

Py has kind of a point although the way he tried to say what he meant was lame.

I'm just not sure how that can make any sense. Calling someone a pussy is essentially saying they aren't masculine enough. Does that mean we can't have any women leaders? Or that our leaders should strive to be more aggressive and less thoughtful? My general stance is that I strive to care for, respect, and value everyone (besides like my girlfriend and stuff  ;D) on a relatively equal level, and I want our government to also.

 ??? im too hyper to understand what anyone is saying... its easter!!!!

I think we should bury the use of the term pussy.  It is so mysogynistic.  I suggest instead we use the term Bondo instead.  What better describes lack of masculinity.

Pussy...
Bondo...
Pussy...
Bondo...
Pussy...
Bondo...

No.

I second that lil' no there. Bondo doesn't sound like pussy, Bondo sounds like a fat German dildo.

The only reason Bondo wants to substitute "bondo" for "pussy" is because you want guys across America to say each night, "I just tapped that bondo".

Yes. I don't want something that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die running the free world.

Ace, congragts on upholding your rep, and making a damn funny comment. You are an asshole and I respect you for that.

Haha Ace, die.

i have to admit he's right(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/icon_lol.gif)