Volunteer Human Shields going to Iraq - Page 2

Alexander's Horse · January 27, 2003, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I mean if you are Anti-War, there are much saner ways to go about it.

Jon Miller

Yes there are - but sane ways don't stop wars.

cavebear · January 27, 2003, 22:22

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Of course. When in the history of mankind, have the French not screwed up?

When the French Fleet managed to arrive as scheduled and anchored off Yorktown?

chequita guevara · January 27, 2003, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I mean if you are Anti-War, there are much saner ways to go about it.

Jon Miller

True, but it's the Christian thing to do. You won't catch any of the atheist left doing this.

Kramerman · January 27, 2003, 22:29

For their sake I hope the war doesnt get held up on their behalf, cause then they would be obstructing the war effort (bad thing) and therefore treasonous. And then they wouldnt be able to return to the country (not a bad thing) or risk being arrested and put on trial for a life sentence at least, death penalty at most.

However, im quite sure the vast majority dont have the guts to stay once the bombs start falling. And will quickly end their protest as they see the AA turrets adjacent to them being blown away and little body parts rainging down upon them. Quite traumatizing in fact, should scar a good deal of 'em for life

.

Kramerman · January 27, 2003, 22:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Yes there are - but sane ways don't stop wars.

The anti-Vietnam War protests seemed pretty effective. Then people like Jane Fonda are just ass-holes. I can see an arguement for calling a hipi a patriot when they take to the streets for peaceful protest, that arguement is not possible for one of these people.

chequita guevara · January 27, 2003, 22:33

Actually, if the war does get held up, then they can't be traitors since there's no war.

It's not against the law to obstruct the war effort.

Kramerman · January 27, 2003, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear

When the French Fleet managed to arrive as scheduled and anchored off Yorktown?

ture...

I still dont like the French tho...

DanS · January 27, 2003, 22:36

Everybody wins in this situation. The Iraqis get a one-way ticket to the Hauge. The peaceniks get to die for their cause. And we get to have all those cool missile on target movies.

cavebear · January 27, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

True, but it's the Christian thing to do. You won't catch any of the atheist left doing this.

Why do people assume atheists are leftists? Sometimes the only rational secular thing to do is kick a$$...

Kramerman · January 27, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, if the war does get held up, then they can't be traitors since there's no war.

It's not against the law to obstruct the war effort.

Held up temporarily, of course

Correct, there is no law that directly states this as illegal (that I know of), however arguements can be made that by obstructing the war effort, they were aiding the enemy in a time of war, and therefore they could easily be charged with treason

DinoDoc · January 27, 2003, 22:42

The last I heard of this, Iraq wasn't letting them wander around the country for fear of them being spies.

chequita guevara · January 27, 2003, 22:45

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
Why do people assume atheists are leftists? Sometimes the only rational secular thing to do is kick a$$.

In this case, "atheist" was an adjective modifying the word, "left." In other words, those leftists who are also atheists would not allow themselves to be used as human shields for this regime against George Bush.

I am aware that there are atheists of all political persuations, but I figured that most people here could follow the English grammar.

Alexander's Horse · January 27, 2003, 23:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

The anti-Vietnam War protests seemed pretty effective. Then people like Jane Fonda are just ass-holes. I can see an arguement for calling a hipi a patriot when they take to the streets for peaceful protest, that arguement is not possible for one of these people.

The anti Vietnam demonstrations took years to be effective.

I suspect the real reason conservatives are foaming at the mouth at these protests is because they stand a good chance of being effective, if not by stopping the war then by making those who support the war look like a bunch of callous warmongers.

DinoDoc · January 27, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I suspect the real reason conservatives are foaming ...

Who's foaming?

Kramerman · January 27, 2003, 23:25

I am an athiest, and see myself as a centrist. I have a good friend who is athiest and is far, far left, and most of the other people I know who are athiest, Im probably the most right outa all of 'em all.

DanS · January 27, 2003, 23:26

If the majority of the voting public are callous warmongers, then this sounds like a winning electoral strat.

Alexander's Horse · January 27, 2003, 23:30

Hey don't get me wrong - I think these human shield people are completely cracked....

Kramerman · January 27, 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

The anti Vietnam demonstrations took years to be effective.

I suspect the real reason conservatives are foaming at the mouth at these protests is because they stand a good chance of being effective, if not by stopping the war then by making those who support the war look like a bunch of callous warmongers.

so? Taking years to be effective in a constructive manner is a million times better than being 'effective' in a destructive manner. In my opinion it is no more fair for this minority of people to force thier views on the country by obstructing a war, than it is for a government to repeal a freedom of speech liberty during war time and beat and arrest protesters at will. If we all play by the rules, its a fair game and the system works between the people and the government. By no means do I wanna live in a facsist state, but I dont wanna live in anarchy either.

Alexander's Horse · January 27, 2003, 23:38

Er Krammerman, the Iraq war is going to be over in like a nano second after hostilities commence. Once it starts protests will be useless.

Kramerman · January 27, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Er Krammerman, the Iraq war is going to be over in like a nano second after hostilities commence. Once it starts protests will be useless.

Well then, if the war wil be so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, then why all the complainin'?

seriously tho, protests have been going on for sometime now (the first major one i remember in Washington DC was sometime in early January), and if their is a true majority who completely appose war, then the antiwar sentiment should have plenty of time to show itself, and show Bush acting in such a manner would all but garuntee he'd be outa a job in 2004.

But see, it is my opinion that there is no such great majority who appose war, and so let the system work. If most peope prefer war/ are indifferent/ are ambivalent, then let the administration do what they were elected/appointed to do, and run the country how they think it should be run.

I dunno if you can see where Im coming frm here...
See these people going to protest the war by being human shields, is like if some radical group decided that they didnt want some NASA mission to take place, and so chained themselves under the space shuttle. Should this radical minority have the power to thrawt the majority just because thier views relative to the rest of the society say the launch shouldnt happen? I think not. Had they protested in fron of mission control in houston, it wouldnt had made a difference, because their numbers were so low, and rightfully so it shouldnt make a diffence, just as the anti-war protests will not make a difference... their numbers are just too low.

kman

Alexander's Horse · January 27, 2003, 23:55

The opinion polls say otherwise.

And I'm not spending my holidays camped next to an Iraqi anti aircraft radar.

Cyclotron · January 27, 2003, 23:58

Quote:

I feel so deeply concerned that I will go on a hunger strike as of this Saturday and I will not eat until we have 10,000 westerners there.

Enjoy your impending starvation...

Kramerman · January 28, 2003, 00:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The opinion polls say otherwise.

And I'm not spending my holidays camped next to an Iraqi anti aircraft radar.

good for you... I mean seriously, i wouldnt want to find out that you got blown up or somethn...

Well, opinion polls are another form of protest. The President heeds them, as he is a politician who wants to stay in office. For all we know he isnt even planning war, hes just flexing muscle and playing brinkmanship to intimidate Saddam.

cavebear · January 28, 2003, 00:14

There is a declared war? No declared war, no obstruction of war...

David Floyd · January 28, 2003, 00:26

Quote:

In my opinion it is no more fair for this minority of people to force thier views on the country by obstructing a war,

This statement implies that you think war is fair, and that obstructing war is bad. Are those your real opinions, or did you misspeak?

Kramerman · January 28, 2003, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

This statement implies that you think war is fair, and that obstructing war is bad. Are those your real opinions, or did you misspeak?

War in itself is definately not fair... to the victor goes the spoils. However, i think how these people are protesting the war isnt fair, like policemen beating and arresting peaceful protestors wouldnt be fair. The government and the people have a contract, where we have tried (very successfully, in my opinion) to balance civil liberties and freedoms with security. These people have taken advantage of their liberties and freedoms at the expense of the rest of the nation who dont share their views (at least to that radical of an extent), that is why I deem it 'unfair'
A 'fair' way to protest would be to march on the streets of washington, not try to block US military actions. This is treason to me because the hesitation this may cause could result in the deaths of US serviceman or the deaths of these Americans who think they are being sooo high and mighty by standing up for what they believe in, in such a radical manner. And frankly, the death of anybody caused by the actions of these bafoons enrages me.

Obstructing war is definately bad from the perspective of those fighting one side of it. I think where I was unclear is the difference between apposing war, and obstructing it. Hippies blowing up a train shipment of Napalm with a final destination of Vietnam (resulting in the death of a train engineer and a soldier) is obstruction, as it hinders the war effort, no matter what some individuals moral outlook on that war is. Hippies marching peacefully (as not to be hypocrits, of course...) in W D.C. is 'fair' opposition. As it puts pressure for change without hindering present actions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the second, in fact I encourage it, as the system is dependent on this to work effectively. The first however obstructs the war effort. Some may see it as justified, but if everyone went around acting in what they think is 'morally justified', then we would have people chaining themselves to space shuttles (ex i used ealier...), sabotaging shipments of genetically altered food, etc, etc. And who is to say they are right? All I know is that if everyone protested everything in this way, nothing would ever be accomplished, progress would never be made. Change must be made in moderate steps, slow steps even, to make sure change is made for the better.

Kman

ravagon · January 28, 2003, 01:20

I have to wonder what the reaction will be from those who were held against their will as human shields last time ... at a guess they probably won't be too impressed.
You also have to wonder what the idiots going over this time will do if the bombs start raining down.

Probably jump into the nearest foxhole crying for their mummies and come out blaming the US.
If they really believed in stopping wars they'd have done this in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine, Angola ... in all of the recent conflicts ... except that then they mightn't have been able to blame the US of A and they might've actually gotten hurt. Now that wouldn't do at all.

David Floyd · January 28, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

War in itself is definately not fair... to the victor goes the spoils. However, i think how these people are protesting the war isnt fair, like policemen beating and arresting peaceful protestors wouldnt be fair. The government and the people have a contract, where we have tried (very successfully, in my opinion) to balance civil liberties and freedoms with security. These people have taken advantage of their liberties and freedoms at the expense of the rest of the nation who dont share their views (at least to that radical of an extent), that is why I deem it 'unfair'

So, then, you're saying that it's OK for the majority to agree to go kill people, but not OK for the minority to stand up and tell the majority that their actions are wrong, and take PEACEFUL steps to prevent the killing?

One does not "enjoy ones freedom" by electing to go kill others for no reason. However, one can enjoy freedom by putting themselves in a potentially deadly situation in order to try to diffuse violence.

Quote:

Hippies blowing up a train shipment of Napalm with a final destination of Vietnam (resulting in the death of a train engineer and a soldier) is obstruction

Blowing up the train would be fine. Killing people would be murder.

Quote:

The first however obstructs the war effort. Some may see it as justified, but if everyone went around acting in what they think is 'morally justified', then we would have people chaining themselves to space shuttles (ex i used ealier...), sabotaging shipments of genetically altered food, etc, etc.

The problem is, the space shuttle and genetically modified food don't kill people, and they are not produced for the express purpose of killing. There's a big difference.

Drake Tungsten · January 28, 2003, 01:46

Quote:

Blowing up the train would be fine. Killing people would be murder.

You support the destruction of private property, Floyd? That's not very consistent with libertarianism...

Alexander's Horse · January 28, 2003, 02:01

What we need on this thread is someone who knows what they are talking about.