A human shield changes his mind

D

DemoCoder

Veteran
A peace protester, Assyrian, and human shield returns from Iraq, a changed man. His secret footage, filmed without Iraqi government "minders" will be shown on ABC this week in an interview with Barber Walters.

http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm

Of course, for Saddam lovers like CosmoKramer, I doubt this will mean anything, even if Iraqi's are screaming silently for help.

(yes, I know the Church of the East are not exactly a high profile reliable source, so let's leave out speculation about the author, and wait for the footage on ABC. If there is really 14hrs of footage of Iraqis speaking out, it is definately some new data to consider)
 
I wish we could ship all the people who are protesting agains the war to iraq. so they can see first hand what type of life they want the iraqis to continue to live in. If anyone finds out exactly when the footage will be shown on abc please post here. thanks

later,
 
Through some fluke either by my invitation as a religious person and or my family connection I was not subject to any government `minders` at any time throughout my stay in Iraq.

As far as I can tell I was the only person including the media, Human Shields and others in Iraq without a Government `minder` there to guard.
Click to expand...

This makes me extremely suspicious. (that it is "propaganda")


edit: clarify what it makes me suspicious of.
 
Propaganda.

Forget it ... the fight is on. I pray it will be swift and with minimal loss of innocent life.
 
me too. i also hope we get out of there quick when it is over too, and turn our attention to solving the issues in Palestine.
 
Yeah, the people who are protesting this removal of Sadam are real fools for the most part. Mostly they have absolutely no clue of what to do about Sadam and the Iraq situation. Also it isn't difficult to see that many of the protestors are less then sympathetic to capitalism and the US anyway.

But what if we let the UN have its way and continue to let Sadam rule in Iraq? Well it is widely supposed that Iraq would never submit to the weapons inspectors fully this in turn would have the trade embargo continued where the oil for food program is in place... Now this may seem like a humanitarian idea but lets consider that the continuance of that program is not in the Iraqi citizens best interest. The program seems like UN sanctioned barter and the countries that are involved with trading oil for food are really ripping the people of Iraq off. Consider that the state supplying the food is buying food from private organizations and then bartering these goods that are already bought and paid for .... for oil no less.

Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that first off that the state supplying the food rations are subsidizing the private company whom is supplying the food. The the state turns around and does the oil for food barter... if you think about this it is a real scam. But the UN was protecting this oil for food program and was more then willing to let the process continue from what I have seen. So as it turns out the motives of the countries opposing regime change in Iraq may be viewed as something less then altruistic. First they have their subsidized private enterprise pork barreling that they will lose and after the government is changed in Iraq these countries will have to pay money for the oil. This really is a plus plus arrangement I believe consider that Iraqs oil base is at least as rich as Saudi Arabia. This regime change may end up a massive boon for the world economy driving the price of oil down to nearly $20 USD a barrel.

Needless to say the oil for food program that the UN has imposed, and is currently upheld as a result of France, Germany and Russians opposition to the war, is no benefit to Iraq or its people.

There is no good reason to protest the end of Sadams Baath party regime, it isn't good for the people of Iraq in terms of his terroristic oppression , it isn't good for the people of Iraq in terms of their financial well being present and future, it isn't good for the people of Iraq in terms of stability in the region. This regime change will end the terrorist training that goes on in the country, it will give the people of Iraq democracy, liberty/freedom and wealth, it will reinvigorate the world economy, it will set a better tone in the region in the long run in terms of the peoples view of the west.(eg as opposed to being evil they will get to see that the west is not what Sadam and the Baath party preach, on that note it will be good to rid the world of yet another socialist government of which the Baath party is, hrm maybe that speaks volumes about the left wing protest ;) .) The US will end any weapons of mass destruction programs that are currently in place. Neighboring countries will not have to live in fear that Sadam will attack them and try to take over their countries.(eg Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia.) The Kurdish people will not live in fear of their own government. Turkey, Jordan will not have to worry about a flood of Kurdish refuges again. Israel won't have to worry about being attacked with scud missels from Iraq again. No one will fear Iraq using chemical weapons again, no one will worry about a nuclear program being developed by Iraq. And finally, this regime change will make other states that doubt Americas resolve in attacking terrorism where ever it is will think twice before they harbour terrorist and their mentalities that support hi-jacking US or other countries airliners loaded with innocent civilians and crashing them into buildings with more innocents as a legitimate means of getting what they want via blackmailing or else face terrorism.

Why all these protestors are protecting Sadam and his oppressive regime is beyond me.

PS : Who is next? ;)
 
But as your quote ways that is all good intentions, we have to wait and see what the reality is in the end. I still support it though and will support getting rid of saddam until we do it, even if the people in power decide it is too costly.
 
Sxotty said:
But as your quote ways that is all good intentions, we have to wait and see what the reality is in the end. I still support it though and will support getting rid of saddam until we do it, even if the people in power decide it is too costly.
Click to expand...

Yeah one could also say that people whom are opposing the change of regime in Iraq are also full of good intensions. AFAIK there are already many in Iraq whom are already living in a hell of sorts. There is good reason to be hopeful for the Iraqi people at this point.
 
You certainly are doing a good job of convincing each other of the righteousness of this war. It's a pity that the UN delegates don't visit this forum, afterall they're the ones who really need to be convinced.

I realise that the UN is not perfect, but until France, Russia and the other opposing nations can be convinced, I will not support this war.

America and Britain think that they have the right to police the World in general (and the Middle East in particular), which is "ironic" given their histories in the Middle East and Asia. I would rather live in a true democracy, instead of one where the votes of British and American citizens have more weight than the rest of the World.
 
hi nathan,
could you please explain what you mean a bit more, do you mean that you need every member of the security council to go along before youll change your mind?

Let me change the scenario a bit, what if China decided to massacre the people of Tibet. Now you need the UN security council to pass a resolution to do something about it. Now you have an automatic veto from China, and maybe one or two other that china can bully into voting against any action. Now you dont have a resolution to stop the massacre.

does that make any action without UN aproval wrong?

hope you answer the question, nathan,

later,
 
Man epic that was a rough position to put him in, but it did illustrate the useless nature of the UN, oh well it is better than nothing.
 
No, I don't expect every country to approve before the UN takes action (I forget what the required percentage is).

Your analogy is unfair; China has the power of veto, Iraq doesn't. Also, it's actually France and Russia that are vetoing. The burden of proof is on the US and Britain, and they haven't delivered.

I understand the frustrations people have with the UN, it is interminably slow. But I also know that Iraq has a lot of oil - and there's nothing the Western World likes more than oil. So the actions of the US and Britain seem more fiscally than altruistically motivated.

I am torn on the subject of the invading forces toppling Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. I would prefer to see Iraq sort this matter out themselves, but that is probably very unrealistic.

Like France, I will change my stance if proof is produced that Iraq is producing biological/chemical weapons and poses a threat to the rest of the World.

The UN is right in one very important repect. War should not be rushed into...
 
Nathan said:
You certainly are doing a good job of convincing each other of the righteousness of this war. It's a pity that the UN delegates don't visit this forum, afterall they're the ones who really need to be convinced.

I realise that the UN is not perfect, but until France, Russia and the other opposing nations can be convinced, I will not support this war.
Click to expand...

What is so righteous about supporting Sadams Baath party? What is so righteous about continuing the food for aid program that keeps Iraq impoverished? What is righteous about not having the back bone to stand up to the piss ant that Sadam is? Why must the people of Iraq continue to live in poverty simply because Sadam is still the leader of this country? What is righteous about protesting the liberation of Iraq? You seem awfully righteous in your judgement considering you have no real good arguments.

If indeed the UN is not perfect and BTW I couldn't agree more why would you insist that all countries concerned support the war? Hell I think that the UK and US have shown some real leadership on the issue not caving into ignorant pacifist throngs.

Yes it is too bad that some of these folks from the UN were not here. If you think for a second that because these government representatives at the UN all have good and righteous reasons for not backing the US and UK on Iraq then you are only fooling yourself.

Nathan said:
America and Britain think that they have the right to police the World in general (and the Middle East in particular), which is "ironic" given their histories in the Middle East and Asia. I would rather live in a true democracy, instead of one where the votes of British and American citizens have more weight than the rest of the World.
Click to expand...

Often times it seems America seems to be obliged by the rest of the world to fix matters since no one else seems to have the influance enough to do it. On this matter they are settling something that they are concerned about and rightfully so... be it Sadam, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, middle east peace or the people of Iraq it does not matter which. Consider that all of these objective I believe are attainable to some degree with the removal of Sadam.

Also I find your last comment ... confusing. I don't think there is any such a thing as a global democracy. The UN is effective as it possibly can be and in this case it has not been so with this development the UN has made itself even less relevant then it was.
 
Nathan said:
The UN is right in one very important repect. War should not be rushed into...
Click to expand...

It wasn't rushed into ... at all. Christ Iraq had 12 years to fully comply but all they did was keep throwing UN weapons inspectors out and shuffling their WMD around to keep them from being discovered. Then finally the UN put another final resolution in the fall for the removal of these weapons.

But Iraq kept playing their games finally the US pushed the matter to a head and when it came down to doing something about the issue France, Germany, China and Russia came out of the woodwork and opposed the US action on Iraq. To suggest that any of the parties involved don't have anything other then altruistic or righteous reasons for their stances is foolhardy.

I guess my point here is simply that this war was not rushed into. France basically said that it opposed taking any action on the Iraq crisis at all .. unless they did find WMD. But the UN had literally 12 years to do this how much more god dammed time do they need?

Heck I suppose the UN could have sat on their asses until another terrorist attack was implemented and maybe it would have been a nuclear bomb in a van. The mentality that supports terrorism and terrorist activities needs to be opposed else they think they are the righteous and right in their acts of terrorism and that is exactly what we see isn't it.
 
Sebastian, I appreciate your views, I just don't agree with them. My first post was probably rather rash, but the general tone of the thread annoyed me.

I'm definitely an ignorant pacifist, and I always will be if the other option is to be an ignorant warmonger. Unfortunately the nature of war is such that the truth only emerges years afterwards, so I can't claim that I will have the chance to be an enlightened pacifist/warmonger anytime soon. :)

In terms of the earlier content of this thread, the point I was trying to make is that this war is not an easy call, and calling people fools for not supporting it is not fair.
 
nathan, let me tell you that i admire people who are pacifists, one of my greatest heroes is Ghandi. Unfortunatly we no longer live in a world where you can be a pacifist.

I dont know if you ever watched the movie Starship Troopers. In it the human race is battling space aliens bugs that are trying to annahialate all living things on earth. In one scene they show the aftermath of a group of pacifists who are trying to live in peace with the bugs. Let me just say that they were slaughtered. What im saying is that, whats the point of being a pacifist when there are weapons that can completly destroy a cities population in a matter of moments(seconds to days). What will your pacifism get you then.

Im sorry to have to say that the pacifists in Iraq who disaggred with Saddam are probably dead, tortured, raped, or shredded. Thats what pacifism in Iraq gets you. Ill support your right to do next to nothing, but dont hold us back when the rest of us decide to do something about the injustices in the world.

Dont get me started on all the problems with the UN. :rolleyes:

later,
 
Yes, I watched Starships Troopers. lol. Your point is an excellent one, epicstruggle. To have a peaceful international community everyone needs to act in an appropriate manner. Unfortunately, someone needs to start acting peacefully first to get the process going. Ghandi is a great example of pacifism in the face of violence.

I like evolutionary theory, and one of the key princples of evolution is that it always tends towards stable states. When you throw weapons of mass destruction into the mix things get decidely unstable. I see 3 options.

1, everybody just learns to get along.
2, we don't use the really big weapons when we fight - a gentlemans agreement, if you will.
3, nuke 'em all!

3 is definitely stable because everyone is dead. 1 probably would be given enough time (and understanding). 2 is more difficult. It only takes one person to use WOMD and everything goes to hell. It's a precarious form of stablity (if that isn't an oxymoron) and it scares me.

It's not fair to say that pacifism is doing nothing. Using Ghandi as an example again, his peaceful protests worked where violence didn't. Pacifism is working towards peace and equality - not sitting on your chuff watching events pass you by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
human shields in Iraq "shocked back into reality"
Replies
14
Views
3K
aras
A
Back
Top