• You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam

Login/Join to Participate

Magnus


member
Location: Bath, UK

Total posts: 279
Posted:This article more than any other, has made me re-think my views on the war.

Magnus... pay it forward

Delete Topic

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Really?! A guy talking with ONE cab driver? Yikes. Anybody who was talked out of going to Iraq and dieing in the form of a human shield by what one cab driver said has got to be pretty damn impressionable. What if he got into a cab back in the US and the driver told him that Sadam was good? He'd have to fly all the way back to Iraq.

I'd feel pretty stupid if I was willing to give my life for something and then was talked out of it in 5 minutes.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

DaiTenshi


member
Location: Stillwater, OK

Total posts: 104
Posted:Actually I got the impression that he talked to two cab drivers. The first was just out and about where he got his first shock of "oops" the second being when he and some others headed out to Jordan.

Thing is cab driver would be the safest guy to ask, a small encloosed environment that is on the move. From what he heard from the cab drivers, and from what I've heard in similair encounters (like he says in the article this happens to reporters and visitors a lot), kinda get the impression that most people are afraid to say these things in a public forum..... secret police and all.

When I heard about the protestors headed to Iraq I could think of very little other than how incredibly naive those people must be and how I've got some beautiful ocean front property here in Oklahoma I'd love to sell them ^___^


No one knows me like I do.

Delete

Kat
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Kat

Pooh-Bah
Location: London, Wales (UK)

Total posts: 2211
Posted:Has anybody actually condoned Saddams regime? There is injustice all over the world. Is the US going to take it all on.

This war is NOT to help the Iraqi people. It's to serve the interests of politicians.

I am anti-war but if the Iraqi's were to join allied forced and overthrow Sadaam tomorrow I would be overjoyed!

Why are civilians joining the war while Iraqi soldiers are not pulling their wait? Doubt it is to support Saddaam, more a case of protecting themselves from an invasion.

I saw one Iraqi on the news 'Welcome, welcome, but where is the help?'


Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.

- W B Yeats

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:The idea of human shields is good, and has been very useful in other places around the world (eg there's been quite a few in Palestine for the past couple of years), but it's amazing to read how stupid and blinkered these particular guys were! Before they signed up maybe they should have done some research on Iraq before going there instead of just jumping on the nearest bandwagon!

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:quote:Originally posted by Kat:
Why are civilians joining the war while Iraqi soldiers are not pulling their wait? Doubt it is to support Saddaam, more a case of protecting themselves from an invasion.I'd suspect that the civilians joining the war are Sunni Muslims, who make up about 30-40% of the population, and who benefit most from Saddam's regime. Whereas the Iraqi infantry I'd guess is mainly made up of Shi'a muslim conscripts. The Shi'a make up about 60-70% of the population and are treated pretty damn badly by Saddam's regime. Iraqi asylum seekers in the UK were nearly mainly Shi'a till recently. Now we're seeing a lot more Sunnis. Big surprise.

Sorry Kat, you know I don't want to sound argumentative, but i knew nothing of all this stuff till a few months ago, and I found it pretty interesting.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Kat
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Kat

Pooh-Bah
Location: London, Wales (UK)

Total posts: 2211
Posted:Simon - how dare you not agree blindly with my opinion no matter how ignorant my opinions are Don't you know it's not polite to argue with a lady?

Lucky I'm no great shakes on the lady front!!

Thankee for info.

Simon - would ask you about implications these refugees entering country would have for UK but its prolly already giving you a headache
so instead. You've got a dirty job but somebody's got to do it.

BTW - I was thinking of sending off a cv to apply for position of democratic leader of Iraq? Do you think I have a chance and what do you reckon the pay is like?

Zimbabwe would be nicer but I have to wait until regime there has been overturned so I thought I might apply to Iraq first - get a bit of experience first.

Nice going into a job like that - you just couldn't do any worse than the guy before you could you


Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.

- W B Yeats

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:I think you would make a fine democratic leader of Iraq, but unfortunatly the position requires a large moustache.

I know there's a 90% chance you prfer whiskers, but does that extend to your own fizzog folliclation?


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:BTW
I've got a dirty job but someone's got to do it?
you mean posting on HoP all day?
Dam right its doity, an I loove it


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Kat
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Kat

Pooh-Bah
Location: London, Wales (UK)

Total posts: 2211
Posted:They didn't call me Hairy Carey for nothing as a kid..

Well actually they only called me that because it rhymes with my surname (carey) and Fairy Carey (the other stinging nickname) is not insulting

Right so - as you are hairier than I you can have Iraq then (grumble) I'll settle for N. Korea and Zimbabwe. Oh and Kashmir!! I'll set up a chain of Opium Dens, Starbucks will be clamouring for the franchise

Now get back to not working! Have to pratcice being a head of state you know!!


Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.

- W B Yeats

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California

Total posts: 2905
Posted:Dom, I have to disagree with you. The idea of a human shield is a bad one. It doesn't matter if the person voluntered for it or not.

How many times now has Iraq put military targets next to civilian. Just the other night I saw on the news about US Helos being shot at from the top of a Mosk.

When you are used as a human shield, you are not protecting the target, you are only adding to the problem. You solve nothing. True that target might not get destroyed, but your actions may cause even more deaths.

Say you wanted to protect a bridge... well you and 50 friends or like minded people stand/live on that bridge thus making it a political and press fiasco if it gets bombed. Now the military, in order to remove the bridge, has to fight their way though and remove each person, then destroy the bridge.

How many people have to die just so you can defend your bridge?


How about the people who are turned into human shields when the Iraqi military park a tank or SAM next to their school or hospital? Yep thats a good idea. Plausable and moral too isnt it?

The people in the building become hostages, prisoners of their own government, held agaist their will sometimes. If they try to leave they are shot.

It is amazing to think that anyone thinks that is a good idea.

Pathetic!


Kat, you cant speek for everyone. It is very easy to say that this is all about oil, especially when you dont really care about the people who live in Iraq.

Now I am assuming your female, how would you feel if it were illeagle for you to go to school, drive, work, show your face? True this is in part due to the religion, but then again the religion is forced on you. You, being female, have little to no rights. Personally, when I put myself in that position I get angry, how do you feel?

There is injustice all over the world, it cant all be stopped, but every little bit helps, or am I mistaken in thinking that?


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Bubble King


member
Location: Abroad

Total posts: 13
Posted:I wish that righteous indignation at the Iraqi military would come after a little thinking. Put yourself in the shoes of them for one second before condemning the 'use of civilians to hide behind'. The US government and military have tried to be all moral about this and claimed that 'If only they would come out and fight like us real soldiers in the open then civilians wouldn't be put at risk' etc.
1. How stupid would you have to be to go and stand in the middle of the very flat desert and let the US rain B52 bombs/ cruise missiles/ cluster bombs/ tank shells/ or the world's biggest non-nuclear bomb etc on you?
2. How moral is it to drop millions of bombs on towns and cities where you will kill and maim indiscriminately?
3. Look at the USA and UK and where they put their military bases and equipment. Every town in the UK has a barracks somewhere and what is the difference between this and the Iraqi's doing the same?

When people talk about civilians in danger I always think about what they are doing themselves to see if it is hypocrisy. If Bush and Blair care about Iraqi civialians why do they allow the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs which will be killing people for years to come?

Its not about defending Saddam, who the US and UK were happy to defend and supply for years, but stopping the creation of a world where US capitalism feels free to send its troops anywhere to back up its commercial interests.


Capitalism Kills - Kill Capitalism

Delete

Dio


Dio

HoP Mechanical Engineer
Location: OK, USA

Total posts: 729
Posted:Nice sig Bubbles, are you a Socialist?

What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.

Delete

Rozi
SILVER Member since Jan 2002

100 characters max...
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Total posts: 2996
Posted:quote:Originally posted by Raymund P.:
Now I am assuming your female, how would you feel if it were illeagle for you to go to school, drive, work, show your face? True this is in part due to the religion, but then again the religion is forced on you. You, being female, have little to no rights. Personally, when I put myself in that position I get angry, how do you feel?

Okay, so we are pulling out the liberating the women argument. Far nuff, whilst we are at it in Iraq, lets invade Kuwait and liberate its women
quote:

"Women in the Middle East" Number 12, April 2003
Bulletin of Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East
Editor: Azam Kamguian
Assistant Editor: Mona Basaruddin

Kuwait: Demands for votes for women
In an overview of the current state of affairs for women in Kuwait, Rola Dashti, chairperson and chief executive officer (CEO) of FARO International, a Kuwaiti financial-services consulting, says that, unlike women in all but two other Arab states, Kuwaiti women can neither vote nor run for political office, despite having one of the highest literacy rates in the region. Thus, she notes, Kuwaiti women have no say in such important societal matters as reform, economics and war; they are forbidden by law from participating in the development of their own country.
Dr. Farida Al-Habib, the Chief of Cardiology at Kuwait Armed Forces Hospital stressed that Kuwait females now serve their society as journalists, editors, doctors, important board members, and a female ambassador. "Women have more of a role to play than simply to cook and clean for men," she said. "We are here to contribute to society," she continued, pointing out the irony of her own situation: her job requires her to enter the "small veins and arteries in the hearts of men" to unclog the blockage, yet they "block me from voting."
The Emir of Kuwait issued a royal decree giving women complete political rights by the year 2003, but the measure was defeated by a 32-30 vote in the Kuwaiti Parliament. The opposition argued that suffrage went against the tenets of Islam and tradition.
By comparison womens rights in Iraq are not as backward as you would believe:

quote:
Setting the Record Straight: Information for Reporters on the Iraq War
http://www.madre.org/art_iraq_setRecStr.html
br>
By Yifat Susskind
Associate Director

WHAT would a new US-imposed government mean for Iraqi women?
Iraqs government brutally suppresses civil and political rights, but has guaranteed women social and economic rights.* Before US-led sanctions destroyed Iraqs ability to provide services, women enjoyed rights to education, employment, freedom of movement, equal pay for equal work, universal day care and five years maternity leave.
While Iraqi women long for democratic rights, they have little reason to be optimistic about a new, US-backed regime, likely to be a military dictatorship under different leadership.4
The US is currently working to incorporate Muslim clerics into the Iraqi opposition. These leaders have a theocratic agenda that directly threatens womens rights.5
Unlike regime change in Afghanistan, where the oppression of women was a key public relations point for the Bush Administration, the US has made no effort to push for the inclusion of women in a post-Saddam Iraq.
* The Baath Party has used womens rights as a means to consolidate its power. Like the US during World War II, Iraq facilitated the entry of women into the workforce to offset a labor shortage caused by its war with Iran. More generally, the Baath Party has supported the participation of women in the public sphere, where they can more easily be indoctrinated and mobilized on behalf of the state.
Women are going to need a massive amount of support when the war is over, specifically in aid for health issues, and in other areas. I do wonder if they will get it:

quote:

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is asking international donors for $5 million to address the specific needs of women in Iraq for the next six months, the BBC reports. Dr. Thoraya Obaid, head of the UNFPA, has voiced concerns that womens needs are frequently overlooked when providing relief.

Full article: http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic...asp%3Fid%3D7690
br>
People often harkern back to the improved conditions for women in Afghanistan. If you would like to read some more about womens rights in Afghanistan following the instalment of the new government, you may be interested in reading this interview:

http://www.whrnet.org/docs/interview-brunet-0302.html
br>
Ultimately, dont kid yourself that the Bush government is all that concerned about attention to womens rights

quote:
THE BOSTON GLOBE:
The "Boston Globe" carries a contribution today by Martha Davis of the U.S.-based Northeastern University School of Law. She urges the U.S. Senate to ratify, and President George W. Bush to support, the international Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. She says the Bush administration is "backpedaling" on the issue, in a political move "to shore up" his domestic conservative base.
Davis says that, as "one of the few countries in the world that have failed to ratify the convention and formally endorse women's equality rights, the United States is keeping company with -- and giving cover to -- the likes of Afghanistan and Somalia." She says U.S. ratification of the convention would help isolate "countries that truly deny women equal rights and substantially increase the international pressure available to promote constructive change."
The treaty requires that nations ratifying the convention on women's equality take action in political, economic, social, and cultural fields "to guarantee the human rights of women." Bush administration conservatives are concerned that signing the international treaty would threaten the autonomy of U.S. internal policy -- a charge Davis says is "baseless."
"[By] ratifying the convention," she says, the United States "would simply be recommitting itself to women's equality and signaling its willingness to participate in the global dialogue with 169 other ratifying nations about how to achieve that goal."


It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California

Total posts: 2905
Posted:Ahh and while were at it lest put an end to all injustice!!

Get rid of equal opprotunity and give everyone a degree from harver and yale. Why dont we just get rid of skin colour and sex while were at it too??


My word look we cant do everything at once, but every little bit counts.


Also... Put yourself in the position of the Iraqi army??? Lets see... surrener, hide behind children and die, die... Well personal I would take die but that is just me.

You are actually supporting the Iraqi troops for using civilians as bullet catchers?

The difference being, we dont house the men and women with civilians! Well other than their families.

It is not like we park tanks next to school and hospitals now is it?

Bubble your speculating, you have 0 proof of anything when you talk of sending troops to support comercial needs.


You see only a war for oil while I see a war to prevent a terrible man from gaining even more power, stopping him from doing anymore atrocities to his people and stopping him from doing anything to anyone again!

Hrm, what about aids, thats been killing people for years too. I dont see you screaming at those who share needles and since it has a nickname of being a homosexual desease, I dont hear you screaming down with homosexuals do I?

No thats because you cant attack all drugies and homosexuals. However, you can attack Bush and Blair.

It is soo easy to do that.


I cant say that no innocents will ever die in a war. I am sorry it just cant happen that way.

Cluster bombs and depleated urainium, those are things that can be cleaned up. Will any clean up be 100% effective? No, but maybe, just maybe the areas effected might be away from any human life.

Of course now I am speculating but thats what you do when the future is unknown.


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Rozi
SILVER Member since Jan 2002

100 characters max...
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Total posts: 2996
Posted:babe, not entirely clear on what you were arguing there, please clarify

It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...

Delete

Bubble King


member
Location: Abroad

Total posts: 13
Posted:First off its good to see the Iraqi's celebrating the end of Saddam Hussein and his torturers. Their smiles are lovely to have seen and I liked the dragging of his statue's head through the streets.

Oh dear Raymund. So there is zero evidence about it being for US commercial interests? Well, leaving aside the issue of Iraq having the world's second largest oil reserves (surely a coincidence?) all you have to do is check out 2 things.

1. The order from the US government to every bank in the world to hand over any and all assets they hold to it. Not the UN or some set up body under independent control (however that would be done) but to it. This means the US government will be able to spend billions of dollars as it sees fit.

2. The handing out of contracts to rebuild and run Iraq which have all gone to US companies. The UK bosses are very unhappy at this as they expected at least some crumbs for Blair's support. Dick Cheney's old company (which is still paying him) has got a fat contract to sort out the oil fields for example. Now I don't normally bet but I'd reckon there wil be a fair correlation between the companies who contributed to the Bush election campaign and those who get the contracts. Maybe I'm being overly cynical here what do you think?

Lastly, commercial interests are not necessarily always just straight getting profits for your own companies. The strategic position of Iraq in the middle east and the clear message to every country in the world about US military power means when the President speaks everyone listens. He speaks on behalf of US business not the US people who generally don't vote for presidents anyway. So when you try to make out that Bush has been on some freedom giving mission ask why he doesn't send in the troops to sort out every dictator? They only go in when the dictator becomes a problem to the flow of profits. If Saddam hadn't tried to grab Kuwaiti oil he would still be sitting in Baghdad getting Christmas cards from his old CIA mates.

Good points on womens liberation or lack of. When Tony Blair says anything like this remember that one of the first things his government did in 1997 was to cut single parents benefit hitting poor women really badly.


Capitalism Kills - Kill Capitalism

Delete