Human Shields and Choice

[Occhidiangela]

That is an erroneous sound byte, a poor paraphrasing. Go back and watch the address he gave to Congress if you want to see what he said. I watched it and felt it had too much hyperbole in any case, I would rather have heard a very short speech:

Something along these lines.

Enter the stage.

"Good evening America. We are about to fight a new, dirty, and difficult kind of struggle, one that has not been our front door until recently, but has been going on for some decades. I need your support and patience while hunt down and destroy the criminals who attacked the WTC." (A few comments about the nature of antiterrorism, to taste.)"

"To those who perpetrated the WTC and Pentagon attacks: You know who you are. We know who most of you are, and will find out who the rest are if other nations will help us stop criminal attacks of this sort. You just killed thousands of people, mostly American, and some hundreds from countries all over the world. For those of you who did this: you can run, but you can't hide. We are coming for you. We will not stop until we have found and exterminated you. If any give you succor, they are accomplices to your crime, and shall pay the same price.

I ask all freedom loving nations of the world to assist us in tracking down and destroying those who continue to use terror as a method. If any nation aid and abet those who did this, we will pay you back in kind. In any case, if you won't help us, stay out of our way. This could get ugly before it is over."

Leave the stage.

That would have made more sense, been clearer, and gotten more cheers.

However, I am not paid to be a speechwriter. :o

[Chaerophon]

Your civility is appreciated.

[Chaerophon]

Anyhow, I'm quite certain that this isn't going to get us anywhere. I feel a certain way about things, as do you. Perhaps some day I'll feel the same way that you do - only time will tell. I hear and understand your arguments, and although I understand their "realism", I have a hard time accepting that what I deem an atrocity is justifiable political maneuvering. In my heart, I hope that I couldn't relativize such a series of acts to myself as "justice". You never know until you're in such a situation I suppose - but I like to think that my principles are a little bit more strongly founded than that.

As I said, I agree with your point on Hiroshima; however, I view the act itself as morally worse than is an attack on a military installation. Perhaps it is the taint of "modern" "bloodless (HA)" warfare that leads me to such conclusions. Anyways, I always enjoy and appreciate your comments Occhi, and whether or not you feel the same way about me, know that your civilized candor is appreciated.

Edit: not trying to "steal the last word" or anything like that, just figure that bandwidth could be better used. :)

[Rhydderch Hael]

In all truth, I was hoping for a discussion on the balancing scales of responsibility between what we choose and what gets chosen for us by Fate. Who is to blame—the one who sets the fire, or the one who walks into the path of the flame? A different kind of "blame game" than what has transpired here: an understanding between the protestors who choose to walk into harm's way, the military that must reconcile itself to this act, and how the greater public would react to our little Human Shield drama when the hammer finally falls. What happens then?

[kandrathe]

Just like I can be against Britains former actions in the Falklands. But if I go sit on the beach and the Royal Navy blows my arse into blood pudding, all it could be used for is to shame the British government for my careless murder. Aiding the Iraqi propagandists is aiding the regime.

No, you are correct. You don't get to vote for the president of the USA, and for good or ill the actions of the US do make some waves. So until we have one world government, we will need to deal with these differences in sovreignty.

I don't like what many nations in the world are doing, and I don't get to vote for their leaders or their policies. I don't agree with many of NZ's policies, but I respect them. I don't get to determine how Maori grievances get resolved, because that's your nations business. If the next war ends up being between the USA and Iraq, then those not involved should remain neutral. Just like we mostly stayed out of the Brits conflict with Argentina, or the problems in Mozambique, Sierra Leone, or Cote d'Ivoire, etc.

Not true.
1.) Bush is a leader I have no right to vote for and yet his administration often makes decisions that effect my life. Effectively Bush makes decisions on behalf of many populations who never voted for him.

2.) Howard and Blair are operating in stark contrast to the collective will of their people and the whims of their democracies will not stop them supporting America. Only their own parties or an early election can do that.

Well, I don't know that for sure, and I would suspect you don't either. I'm not privy to all the intelligence information that Bush, or Blair get to see. At some point, we elect others to weigh all the information and make decisions that are in the best interests of our nations. When the elections get held, those democracies can throw the bastards out of office and get some pacifists in there if that is what they want.

[Taeme]

Who is to blame? Everyone involved. War is not pinned on the aggressor or the defender or the civilians alone, when it's not a war of conquest. And this surely is not.

What happens then?

Depends. The point of the protestors' actions would seem to be more about illuminating the supposed folly of the conflict, and less about preventing it by simple presence. If the conflict does go through and some of the protestors go down with the regime, public sentiment should mirror the sentiments of the conflict itself, whatever they might be. The people who agree with the slaughter will not be bothered by their deathes, while those who are bothered will remain bothered.

Not exactly a solid answer, I know, but it's the best I can imagine given the circumstances. I still feel like I'm drowning when I discuss this war, and wonder if the people yelling about it are just very good at holding their breath ...

[--Pete]

edited

[Chaerophon]

edited

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

edited

[Chaerophon]

edited

[--Pete]

edited

[Chaerophon]

edited

[Taeme]

ABANDON THREAD!

CONTAINMENT FIELD BREACHED!

[Roland]

...is not that they don't act. It's that everyone around them (both good and bad) do.

[Nystul]

Because of the political climate and the objectives that would lead to this war, I think that U.S./Allied forces would be taking the effort to avoid collateral damage as much as conveniently possible. I really do not think the presence of western protestors will cause any further measures of caution to be taken. If such measures would be taken, though, then the protesters would be unwittingly protecting Iraqi military targets and probably causing increased U.S./Allied casualties. That's not even considering the likely scenarios where a supposedly "civilian" building is determined to be a military target, or the strong possibility that these people become actual hostages of the Iraqi military once fighting starts.

[kandrathe]

Yeah, I was thinking we need more light and less heat...

[Roland]

...to stop it from moving, and I get crushed, it is not tragic. It is stupidity. I got what I deserved.

There are other ways of protesting. War is war. Both sides bleed, both soldier and civilian. We deal, and move on.

As far as I am concerned, they can bomb the protestors as equally as they do the soldiers. Callous? Maybe. But then, callousness and pacifism is what has led us to this point, when it could have been dissolved years ago.

Like I said, the problem with pacifists isn't that they don't act. It's that everyone else does. Refusing to act only guarantees that those who WILL act will have no opposition. Not the kind of world I want to live in, thank you.

If I die as a civilian casualty in war, I'm not gonna bitch about it in the afterlife.

[Taeme]

But then, callousness and pacifism is what has led us to this point, when it could have been dissolved years ago

What point is that? We could have dissolved the growing terrorist problem 'years ago'?

Like I said, the problem with pacifists isn't that they don't act. It's that everyone else does.

Pacifism does not imply lack of action. It implies lack of violent action, and it has worked in lots of cases before. Put down your straw man and no one will get hurt.

[--Pete]

Hi,

What point is that? We could have dissolved the growing terrorist problem 'years ago'?

What "terrorist problem"? Except for some sound bites, Iraq and the so called "war" on terrorism are not at all related. However, the present situation in Iraq is due, in large part, to the UN having failed to enforce the peace agreement that ended the '91 war. Specifically, it has failed to bring about the disarmament of Iraq through inspections and economic pressure. Had the UN followed through and enforced the peace agreement years ago (say in '92 and '93), then little action would have been needed then and no action would be needed now.

Of course, the fact that the USA needed a second attack on its soil (and a number of attacks throughout the world) to acknowledge and take action on a world problem that has been of importance for thirty years or more is a disgrace. And that that action was a misguided and largely useless war in Afghanistan is even worse. Especially since that war has apparently failed to achieve its objective, namely to bring one man to trial.

So, I suspect that the American administration being in a position to be ridiculed by the world at large for (1) having gotten into the anti-terrorist game so late, (2) having bungled in true amateur fashion, (3) blowing the hell out of holes and camels (and some friendly forces) but not really accomplishing much in respect to terror, and (4) having some of the biggest terrorist supporting nations as its allies, has decided that to make itself look good, they'll take on a target they think they can beat (after all, his daddy did it).

However lousy those reasons to reopen the war on Iraq may be, however puerile the motivations of the Shrub, the fact remains that either Powell lied to the UN and the world or Iraq is a serious threat. The reports coming out from the UN inspectors tend to support Powell's claims. So, yes the US is probably going into this for the wrong reasons, led by a glory hound fool. That doesn't negate the need to go in and it doesn't absolve the UN for not having taken action long before.

Pacifism does not imply lack of action. It implies lack of violent action, and it has worked in lots of cases before.

No, pacifism has *never* worked in external affairs. It has only worked (Gandhi, MLK, Mandela) in internal affairs and then only when the opposing side either accepted their moral responsibility or was shamed into acting like it had. Rational discussion *has* worked in international affairs, but only when both sides were rational (not often the case with dictators). And even when discussion has worked, it required the knowledge on the part of both sides that each was willing to use force if some mutually acceptable compromised could not be reached. The threat of force is what generated those compromises.

International politics conducted by pacifists fail. The only ones that pacifists restrain are those that don't need to be restrained. And those that don't give a damn except for what they want thumb their noses at pacifists, knowing that there will be no repercussions. That the people they will need to deal with will have to be other than the pacifists. And meanwhile, they prepare for war -- a war the pacifists will be more than willing to let someone else fight in and die in.

Pacifists? Bah. If there were a world wide pooper scooper law, they'd all be in baggies.

--Pete

[Moldran]

I can't believe that ANYONE would try to justify the purposeful, deliberate murder of 135,000 PLUS mostly refugee civilians as being "part of war". The city had practically no strategic significance, and, as has been stated above, was largely filled with women, children, and those fleeing the war. Crushing the spirit? The war was nearly over! (Not that I feel that such a motivation justifies this particular act in the first place)

Serious scientists estimate the total number of victims who died in the bombing of dresden to be ~40,000. That 135,000 stuff definately is nothing more than propaganda. Propaganda that many people like to believe recently.

By your reasoning, the Americans should carpet bomb Baghdad and kill as many of its citizens as possible -and each and every one of them would absolutely deserve it. Because they didn't oppose Saddam, of course.

Saddam is a dangerous criminal, but so far, he has not done anything even remotely comparable to the Holocaust.
I did not say that it was the Americans´ "task" to bomb Dresden. I said that the vast majority of the people who died in Dresden were not innocent victims, but the very same people who actively supported the regime that really is responsible for WW2 and all its consequences.

Edit: Thought that I would address Pete's point re: how is this bombing an example of an atrocity? To my mind, the people of Dresden were as much a part of an extermination plan, if a less demeaning and terrible one, as were the Jews. The Jews were persecuted and exterminated on the basis of race. The people of Dresden were, to take it perhaps a fraction too far, in one night, for all intents and purposes, premeditatedly persecuted and to a frightening degree, exterminated on the basis of their geographic location. I suppose that the key word here is EXTERMINATED. The goal was no less than complete and total eradication. While Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jewish populace was, perhaps, more vile, demeaning, and uninstigated; the nature of the crimes are, to my mind, not so far apart as you seem to believe.

Was there a German extermination plan against Jews ? Yes.

Was there a US/allied extermination plan against Germans ? No.
Had the allied forces wanted extermination of Germany, they could have done so. They could just have taken a bit more time and dropped a series of nuclear bombs upon Germany. They did not.

Dresden was attacked in a war that Germany had started. Dresden was attacked for the purpose of breaking the morale of the German population, who kept supporting the Nazi forces.

For what purpose were Jews eliminated by the Nazis ? For no other purpose than to eliminate them. That is the difference.

The natures of the crimes are as far apart as they can be. The one was a (maybe right, maybe wrong) strategical decision within a brutal conflict. The other one was the most barbaric crime in history.

Moldran