|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 11 new of 35 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 25 of 35:
| 
Sep 22 15:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 26 of 35:
|
Sep 22 19:41 UTC 2003 |
Nice pics Todd. Heh, to piss you off, I'll say I wonder if they are
real ;)
Ofcourse, they have to be doing good stuff too there but unfortunately
good deeds don't compensate for evil ones.
And I know that the British Army occupies is supervising a smaller area
but still there are very rare such stories against the British.
In the first pic, replace the small cat with a bigger one and you get a
picture of what must've happened!! :)
and Re#17, burgers?? The tiger chewed off the soldier's arm.
|
other
|
|
response 27 of 35:
|
Sep 22 23:55 UTC 2003 |
The woman being prosecuted was in violation of the economic embargo
against Iraq. She went to Iraq to act as a human shield. I'm undecided
as to whether I think it is a more practical response for the government
to prosecute these people after the fact for violation of the embargo, or
to prosecute them, as they're discovered, for treason (giving aid and
comfort to the enemy in a time of war).
There is no doubt that the propaganda use Saddam's Iraq made of these
people is a strong basis for charges of treason, despite the best
intentions of the shields themselves. If the shields entered Iraq as
observers under official UN auspices, or as journalists representing and
regularly reporting to legitimate news outlets, then I would say they
ought to be immune from prosecution, but otherwise, let 'em have it.
|
i
|
|
response 28 of 35:
|
Sep 23 01:21 UTC 2003 |
Treason for playing human shield in an air war???
What's next, making it treason to vote against Bush in '04?
Or maybe there just won't be an election in '04?
|
other
|
|
response 29 of 35:
|
Sep 23 01:37 UTC 2003 |
Walter, as fervently as I oppose the Shrub, I still think that there is a
clear line between actively opposing a foreign military action from
within domestic borders and going to the foreign nation and giving its
despotic ruler both a willing hostage and a propaganda bonanza to use in
a battle largely on the field of public opinion.
#28 suggests that you are either unwilling or unable to draw such a
distinction, and I think that is patently false. I think you responded
to #27 without giving it a fair reading and weighing its merits.
Certainly, the leap of logic from your first question to your second is
indefensible, though under current circumstances, it seems that the
second question presents a not-so-entirely remote possibility, taken on
its own.
Question three is really not even worth a response, except to point out
that even as rhetorical ballast, it is so lightweight as to diminish
rather than enhance the effect of the response as a whole.
|
i
|
|
response 30 of 35:
|
Sep 23 04:00 UTC 2003 |
Eric, i have very low opinion of both the current administration's
behavior (from its "and then Santa comes and takes Iraq off our
hands" war plan to its sicko attempts to equate free speach with
treason) and the <cough> moral <gag> standards of the peace movement
(non-European foreigners may freely practice genocide on each other,
but burn the flag if we try to stop 'em).
As i think you recognize, a human shield for an air war target is of
no direct military utility whatever. If the target is favored with
a bomb, a "shield" dies without any reduction in the intended damage.
I would view a human shield who got into infantry-level ground
combat or started piling sandbags around himself (& target) quite
differently.
That a human shield is a "willing hostage" means little to me. If
i was picking targets for bombs, a target with a human shield (who
had clearly volunteered for high risk of death) would seem to me a
better pick than one with an Iraqi Army draftee guard (who'd have
been tortured if he failed to serve). Saddam had an effectively
unlimited supply of potential hostages in any case. But i believe
in a right to suicide, so i may see this differently than you.
Yes, human shields had a propoganda value to Iraq. So did everyone
who show up an anti-war rally. So did a Senator speaking eloquently
against the war. So would a Buddhist immolating himself. These all
strike me as clear example of political free speach. I don't know
if you noticed, but i also saw the human shields a having definite
political value FOR Pres. Bush - in the view of many pro-war and
centrist Americans, they were bold examples of left-wing and anti-
war Americans being idiots, disloyal to America, out of touch with
reality, freaks, etc. This identification may well help Bush to
win re-election next year. (If i was working for him, i'd advise to
let the human shields off with polite words to the effect that they
meant well, but were utterly blind to and useless against evil...a
sadly common failing of liberal and Democratic politicians...).
|
sj2
|
|
response 31 of 35:
|
Sep 23 18:34 UTC 2003 |
I think the news story mentioned the female as working in hospitals in
Iraq. Is that treason?
|
other
|
|
response 32 of 35:
|
Sep 23 18:50 UTC 2003 |
It seems that more clarification is appropriate. If charges are to be
filed at all, they should not be applicable to people who go to
essentially function as aid workers, as sj2 suggests. I'm somewhat of
the mind that civilians who go and camp out on military target sites to
oppose the war deserve whatever comes, but I couldn't come up with the
eloquent logic Walter uses to justify it. So, I resorted to legal
prosecution, or the threat thereof, as an alternative to discourage this
sort of behavior.
As for the propaganda value of different activities, I feel the effect of
manipulation of naive human shields is so much potentially greater (than
the propaganda potential of any sort of domestic dissent activities) as
to be a difference of type rather than degree. That's why I
differentiate between the two.
|
sj2
|
|
response 33 of 35:
|
Sep 24 05:53 UTC 2003 |
I am sure the female's lawyers will argue on the basis of right to
freedom, expression etc etc and keep her out of jail. But at a time
when Bush's asking the UN and US Congress for money and troops, this
looks like bad PR.
|
i
|
|
response 34 of 35:
|
Sep 25 01:47 UTC 2003 |
Re: #32
If the propoganda value of a few well-manipulated fools appears to be
that high, Mr. President, then either (a) we should have cleaned the
Democrats out of our PR office and put somebody with brains and drive
in charge weeks ago, or (b) too much of the press is blatently working
against us, and their CEO's need some quick reminders of the natural
business risks of backing the Hitler of Iraq against the forces of
freedom and democracy.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 35 of 35:
|
Sep 25 22:00 UTC 2003 |
(The purpose of the "human shield" appears to have been overlooked:
to prevent the bomb being dropped in the first place, not to reduce the
damage of that bomb once dropped. It was all about public relations:
get 'friendly fire' casaulties early and often.)
|