Why should we cut Saddam a break?

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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  

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[[V] Silverblade]

These protesters are trying to continue the argument that the war should not be underway in the first place

I think it's foolish to belive so strongly in the US government.  

couldnt agree more...

[Brain]

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

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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

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

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

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.

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?

[Brain]

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

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[Brain]

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.

[kami]

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

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?

[Jeb]

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.

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."

[jn.loudnotes]

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"

[Jeb]

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.

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

[tasty]

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.

[kami]

I'll post this here as well; 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?

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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:

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 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.