Volunteer Human Shields going to Iraq - Page 3

DinoDoc · January 28, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
What we need on this thread is someone who knows what they are talking about.

Why are you here then?

chequita guevara · January 28, 2003, 02:08

Actually, "hippies" would lie down in front of the train, as they did during the 1980s to stop arms shipments to the murderous governments of El Salvador and Guatelmala. Generally this worked, but one train didn't stop and a protestor lost both his legs (my understanding is the soldier didn't see the man on the tracks).

Generally speaking, Krammerman, Americans are anti-war unless given a good reason. During Desert Shield, a majority of Americans were opposed to the initiation of warfare by the United States. Once the war began, however, the American public overwhelmingly supported it. This pretty much happens in every country with every war.

Right now, a majority of Americans support war against Iraq if the UN apporves it. Only about one third of Americans think we should go it alone. One sixth are opposed to any war at all. Despite the numbers, once war starts (and it will start, regardless of whether or not Westerners are trying to act as shields), I would guess that support for th war will top 80%, even if we're going it alone.

Polling numbers alone won't stop Bush from launching his war. Demonstrations will not stop a war (it didn't last time and we were demonstrating for six months before the war and had the majority of the public behind us). Only obsruction will stop the war, but it ain't being a human shield that will do it. It would take illegal measures, and I'm not talking about violence.

Drake Tungsten · January 28, 2003, 02:18

Quote:

It would take illegal measures, and I'm not talking about violence.

What are you talking about? Smoking pot? If so, I commend you for playing to the strengths of your anti-war allies...

Kramerman · January 28, 2003, 02:19

Quote:

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?

Protesting peacefully on the streets is Peaceful. Willingly becoming human shields to block military action and potentially bring harm to US servicemen is not PEACEFUL protest, but radical and dangerous protest, both for the protestors and those they effect.

Quote:

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.

Im not sure if i understand what you wrote here or not, so i will hold my comments.

Quote:

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

ah yes, I forgot that Mr. Floyd here was the know-all/say-all on moral absolutes. That he defined what was good and evil because he is high and mighty and for some reason is better able to say what is right and wrong than the rest of us can...

please, dont even begin to try and justify your above position using 'morals', as I dont give a **** about another individuals, another one person's (outa 280 million in this country) moral standpoint. I only concern myself with laws that protect my freedoms.

Quote:

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.

See, thats not what the radicals that chain themselves up say! See how differing morals create such a divide!? They say the radiocative isotope electic generator in the satalite could kill people if the satalite crashed back to earth; they say animal experimentation, such as in space, is wrong, even if to further science. They say genetically altered food affects the environment adversely... I could go on and on. Perhaps they are right, they have good arguements.. perhaps they are wrong, those with opposing arguements have just as good of ones... the point is WE DONT KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG NOW. And those few people dont have the right to just halt progress because they think they are so high and mighty and think they are right and everyone else is wrong. That is why change must be slow. Do you understand what Im saying?

Lets say there is a man about to be executed. You dont agree with this, hypothetically. You dont find justification in killing this man. However, 200 million other people can justify it using whatever morality they possess. Because you are hard headed and think you are right and the 200 million other people must be wrong, you chain yourself to the electric chair, refusing to budge so that the man can be electricuted. Are you right in doing this? perhaps... but in a heterozygous society like ours, you cant just throw yourself around like this, doing waht you believe is right, and not expect to take responsibility for your actions.

The world is not perfect, far from it. That is what this game of society is all about, about dealing with people with different ideas and perspectives than yourself. Its tough. A pain in the ass, even, but the worst thing you can do is go around thinking your always right and others are wrong, especially on a subject as subjective as morality.

Kman

Kramerman · January 28, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

Generally speaking, Krammerman, Americans are anti-war unless given a good reason. During Desert Shield, a majority of Americans were opposed to the initiation of warfare by the United States. Once the war began, however, the American public overwhelmingly supported it. This pretty much happens in every country with every war.

Right now, a majority of Americans support war against Iraq if the UN apporves it. Only about one third of Americans think we should go it alone. One sixth are opposed to any war at all. Despite the numbers, once war starts (and it will start, regardless of whether or not Westerners are trying to act as shields), I would guess that support for th war will top 80%, even if we're going it alone.

Polling numbers alone won't stop Bush from launching his war. Demonstrations will not stop a war (it didn't last time and we were demonstrating for six months before the war and had the majority of the public behind us). Only obsruction will stop the war, but it ain't being a human shield that will do it. It would take illegal measures, and I'm not talking about violence.

I believe this is true, what you say. Bush may very well be beting on the support for war to be as high as 80%. So, this does make protests and polling pointless to stop war, at this point, as the president may rationally think that the general opinion of the nation only matters in the end. If he is wrong tho, it is his career on the line.

The only point i am trying to make, is who are these people to say that the war is wrong to such an extent as to obstruct it. The equivalent on the other end of the spectrum would be pro-war fanatics going to Iraq with their deer hunting rifles to shoot up the Iraqi military, or even wose, civilian population. Can they justify this, absolutely with their own little moral microcosm. They are no more right in doing this, in my opinion, than these 'shields' who can cost the US in money and lives thru delays of action and attempts of removal. They are more than entitled to their opinion, I just dont think they have the right to take such radical action, at the expense of the rest of us.

Quote:

Actually, "hippies" would lie down in front of the train, as they did during the 1980s to stop arms shipments to the murderous governments of El Salvador and Guatelmala. Generally this worked, but one train didn't stop and a protestor lost both his legs (my understanding is the soldier didn't see the man on the tracks).

I was merely giving a hypothetical example.
As for the man who lost his legs, i sure hope he didnt take the train company or US gov to court, as he shoulda been prepared for those consequences, and accept them, and not waist my tax dollars with a frivolous law suit.

EDIT: and the other hippies im sure were arrested and sent to jail for their actions, no matter how 'right' they think they were. I'm wondering how much impact they actually had? I mean, other than wasting time and money, did they accomplish anything more than they would have if they wrote their congressmen and lobbied?