CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Sxotty said:
Your post was directly below mine. Since you didn't specify who you responded to I don't feel particularly embarrased thinking it was me...
Sickening
- Thread starter CosmoKramer
- Start date
Your post was directly below mine. Since you didn't specify who you responded to I don't feel particularly embarrased thinking it was me...
While I find it lamentable that this old lady is going to jail, I don't think it should suprise anyone. The U.S. government has been throwing people in prison for protesting that terrorist training camp at Ft. Benning, the School Of the Americas, (or WHISC for those up on current lingo), for over 10 years. I personally know several people who have served between 3 months and 3 years for their actions.
On top of this, a local guy I know who has been working for years to bring food and medicine to the people of Iraq in violation of the sanctions currently has a 10 year suspended sentence over his head which can be invoked at any time.
However, this is not to say that the statement about "any other country would have killed you" being correct. There are numerous organizations around the world whose goal is to act as human shields in times of conflict.
http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/english/welcome.asp
http://www.peacebrigades.org/
They've done work in places like Colombia, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Chiapas, Mexico. It is my understanding that the only real reason why they have yet to operate in a place like certain areas of Africa is because of a lack of funds and infrastructure to handle more than a few operations simultaneously. There may even be dedicated groups that focus more on places like Liberia that we're just not aware of.
On top of this, a local guy I know who has been working for years to bring food and medicine to the people of Iraq in violation of the sanctions currently has a 10 year suspended sentence over his head which can be invoked at any time.
However, this is not to say that the statement about "any other country would have killed you" being correct. There are numerous organizations around the world whose goal is to act as human shields in times of conflict.
http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/english/welcome.asp
http://www.peacebrigades.org/
They've done work in places like Colombia, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Chiapas, Mexico. It is my understanding that the only real reason why they have yet to operate in a place like certain areas of Africa is because of a lack of funds and infrastructure to handle more than a few operations simultaneously. There may even be dedicated groups that focus more on places like Liberia that we're just not aware of.
Legion said:
i don't rightly see how you can claim she was "endangering the lives of our soldiers" seeing as how she didn't want the war in the first place. if anything, all those who pushed for the war are the ones endangering the lives of our soldiers; seems like a case of fault projection.
CosmoKramer said:
Good? I don't believe I said that. Necessary at times, depending on the situation and the child? Possibly. I also clearly stated that I'm not sure I'd ever be able to spank my daughter. As for semantics, hitting someone implies intent to physically harm them; judicious, calm spanking implies a loving disciplining of a child.
Honestly, this is your problem when you post. . .your quickness to make knee-jerk assumptions.
Yes, Megan is very special to me. 'Nuff said.
Sure do. I think helping other people is humanitarian, even if they live in countries that we've placed embargoes or sanctions on. Those measures are there to exert pressure on the government of the nation. Or are we trying to punish the population for 'allowing' their government to exist? Some of the posts in this thread by Americans worries me, because I think we need to better define exactly why such sanctions are placed and exactly whom they're intended to damage before labelling a fellow citizen a traitor. I for one would like to hope they're wielded against the government and not a nation's populace, and as such it's hardly treasonous to give aid to a person who is in no way affiliated with his/her country's political power structure.
Jane Fonda, on the other hand, should've been arrested and thrown in jail 30 years ago, where she should still be rotting.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Under most circumstances (i.e., when you are not on probation or out on bail, etc.) you can freely leave the country. I think our constitution is broad enough to easily cover that. However, you can't expect to re-enter the country without facing any consequences for your actions abroad, especially if they directly involved the security of the nation.
Easy for you to say. I expect your opinion might be a little different if it was your friends and family who were 'collateral damage'.
I watched a short documentary about Iraq the other day in which the BBC reporter visited a small village which had been attacked with Cluster bombs. There was no fighting there - the front line was miles away so the bombing was obviously an error. One couple had lost all 6 of their Children in this unnecessary attack. I doubt that telling them, "Its life. We can't worry about that all the time. As long as its kept to a low number it shouldn't matter" would give much comfort.
lol, thank you pax it was bugging me too. i didn't think i had it right but google came back with a lot of hits for "bi-standards" and it was late so i just left it at that.
oh and jvd i figured supported the administration's opinion on collateral damage but i still see no basis for your insinuation that she was attempting to "protect cowards and murders." in retrospect, and given the civilian deaths due to long range attacks, it seems to me that she was rather trying to protect innocent bystanders from cowards and murderers.
oh and jvd i figured supported the administration's opinion on collateral damage but i still see no basis for your insinuation that she was attempting to "protect cowards and murders." in retrospect, and given the civilian deaths due to long range attacks, it seems to me that she was rather trying to protect innocent bystanders from cowards and murderers.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
It doesn't matter what her intentions are.
What matters is, she (and other "human shields") pose a direct hindrance to the success of military operations. Does anyone think it's beneath Sadam, for example, to hide military targets / weapons / military in or near "civilian" structures? Do human shields consider this?
What about the psycological impact of "killing human shields" can have on American forces that have been given an order to take out a target?
Of course, the obvious intention of these shields is to try and make us change our course of action. That's the point. These are military actions, and anything that is done to directly alter the course of those actions is for all intents and purposes a hostile act against the U.S., and subject to being treasonous.
If you want to be a human shield...fine. But you need to understand that you will be, and should be, treated as an enemy combatant. Your purpose is to try and stop offensive military action. You don't need to pick up a gun for that.
Protest the white-house at home all you want. Be a human shield if your convictions are that deep if you must...but be willing to deal with the consequences.
What matters is, she (and other "human shields") pose a direct hindrance to the success of military operations. Does anyone think it's beneath Sadam, for example, to hide military targets / weapons / military in or near "civilian" structures? Do human shields consider this?
What about the psycological impact of "killing human shields" can have on American forces that have been given an order to take out a target?
Of course, the obvious intention of these shields is to try and make us change our course of action. That's the point. These are military actions, and anything that is done to directly alter the course of those actions is for all intents and purposes a hostile act against the U.S., and subject to being treasonous.
If you want to be a human shield...fine. But you need to understand that you will be, and should be, treated as an enemy combatant. Your purpose is to try and stop offensive military action. You don't need to pick up a gun for that.
Protest the white-house at home all you want. Be a human shield if your convictions are that deep if you must...but be willing to deal with the consequences.
Personally, I don't think that the military would give a toss about any civilian 'human shield' such as the woman in this case. It doesn't fit in with the military mindset.
If the military were really too worried about civilian casualties, whether American or Iraqi, they wouldn't have used cluster bombs in urban areas. Both the American and British troops used cluster bombs in built-up areas on occasion - hardly precision bombing.
If the military were really too worried about civilian casualties, whether American or Iraqi, they wouldn't have used cluster bombs in urban areas. Both the American and British troops used cluster bombs in built-up areas on occasion - hardly precision bombing.
And they shouldn't be worried. Thier job is to win a war. Do you really think if sadam was fighting a war over here he wouldn't go for as many casualties and possible. If sadam was in the middle of a crowded public place we should use any means possible to capture him or kill him no matter what happens .Mariner said:
jvd said:
...and no Iraqis for that matter. so sorry about your uncle's friend but you are drifting off topic.
oh and Joe, do you honestly not see the absurdity in accusing someone of "hostile acts" for peacefully trying to persuade others from committing hostile acts? besides the formal charge is for breaking sanctions anyway, and a bit more down to earth but unless someone can show a clear paper trail between this woman and the baath party then i would hardly call it a reasonable charge.
Joe DeFuria said:
I am sure this is no different impact than when our highly trained/highly skilled and extremely well equipped soldiers kill our own troops and those of our allies... or when missles/bombs go off target and blow up a civilian joint...
naturally if our troops can handle that impact... they will not really care about a human shield... said shield will be collateral damage in their eyes...