The first human shields have arrived in Baghdad. I'm saving the whole article, complete with links, here for posterity:
By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press WriterWonderful, a bunch of Grima Wormtongues. I just hope that after all this is over one of these "activists" (if they all haven't been blown into hemp-scented meat chunks) meets up with an Iraqi mother of a tortured child or wife of an imprisoned, executed dissident, and gets the sock in the jaw he or she will so richly deserve.BAGHDAD, Iraq - American and European peace activists wrapped their arms around posts on a bridge over the Tigris River on Thursday, symbolizing their intent to act as human shields in any U.S. war on Iraq.
The 14 activists, mostly from Italy, were one of the first groups here using the "shield" title, which suggests they might place their bodies at potential targets to deter bombing. But they acknowledged their mission was only a gesture meant to try to deter an invasion to topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"I have no intention of being a martyr," Canadian Roberta Taman said. "I'm here because I believe that the world wants peace and that we can achieve peace."
The campaigners, organized as the Iraq Peace Team, have been draping banners over public facilities in Baghdad this week — an electricity station, a water treatment plant and, on Thursday, the Martyrs Bridge over the Tigris. "Bombing This Site Is A War Crime," the banners read.
Dozens of other "human shields" — Europeans and Americans — obtained visas at the Iraqi Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, on Tuesday and were also headed for Iraq, riding in double-decker buses.
"A country that can hardly provide water for its citizens cannot be a threat to the world," Ignacio Cano of Spain said.
Some of the activists charge that the Geneva Conventions governing the practices of war make it a crime to attack facilities essential to civilian life, as the U.S. military did in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) when its bombs knocked out Iraq's electricity system.
Standing on the bridge, Iraq Peace Team leader Kathy Kelly of Chicago said, "You can imagine what this city would be like if it were cut off when some people need desperately to get to a hospital or to connect with the people on the other side."
In New York on Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) and the 15 Security Council members were meeting to discuss the potential humanitarian consequences of a war in Iraq.
The U.N. refugee agency said it is concerned about possible shortages of food, drinking water, winterized shelters, sanitation, and other basic services. It says 600,000 Iraqis might flee to neighboring countries if war breaks out.
As peace groups here and around the world readied for marches and rallies Saturday in protest of U.S. war plans, the U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq quietly went about another day's business Thursday.
Among other missions, a U.N. chemical team began the neutralization of mustard gas from 10 artillery shells at the former al-Muthanna chemical weapons installation in the desert northwest of Baghdad.
The 155mm shells, whose complete neutralization is expected to take another two or three days, were the first banned weapons destroyed by the U.N. teams in the new round of inspections that began last Nov. 27. The shells were actually inventoried by previous U.N. inspectors in the 1990s, but were not destroyed before that inspections regime collapsed in 1998.
(Via Tim Blair, February 14, 11:36 AM Aussie time.)
Posted by Andrea Harris at February 13, 2003 11:07 PM"Some of the activists charge that the Geneva Conventions governing the practices of war make it a crime to attack facilities essential to civilian life, as the U.S. military did in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) when its bombs knocked out Iraq's electricity system. "
Because invading a neighbor country is a-okay. Also, I understand electricity is convient, but considering the vast number of people who manage to somehow life without it, I'm not so sure it counts as an 'essential' facility.
Posted by: amy at February 14, 2003 at 01:45 AMI think it is highly likely that these "shields" will cut and run when it hits the fan. I know some disagree, but neither side has any real evidence on the matter.
The question will have to be answered empirically, but I'm okay with that.
Posted by: Ken Summers at February 14, 2003 at 08:39 AMwhat a bunch of fucking wussies...jesus...i swear....if i didnt spend most of my time too drunk to even find my way out of my own apartment, i would go to iraq myself and slap some common sense into these idiots....
Posted by: mr. helpful at February 14, 2003 at 10:33 AMHopefully, some of these people will survive to be tried for war crimes and, if they're Americans, for treason.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at February 14, 2003 at 10:51 AMWhat really gets me is that if Gore or Clinton were President right now, there would be nary a peep of protest about invading Iraq. I don't remember hardly any protesting when we were bombing the crap out of Serbia in 99. But they scream like we are skinning babies now, before the first bomb has yet to fall. This is really all about their hatred for Bush. What's the deal with that? For a Republican, I think he is somewhat liberal. I didn't really like Clinton and I'm not overly crazy about Bush, but I don't hate either one. These people need to get a life, get a significant other and realize that it really doesn't matter that much who is President and if the people realize they don't like the policies then they can vote them out in the next election.
Posted by: BillE at February 14, 2003 at 01:26 PMThank you, BillE. Despite their constant ranting about Bush & Co., the "antiwar" people think we are too stupid to recognize exactly the point you just made: namely, that has very little to nothing to do with "peace" and everything to do with an idiotic personal grudge against the president that makes them blind to absolutely any actual policy arguments.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at February 14, 2003 at 02:12 PMHere's some red meat for ya: a little psychoanalysis of a real-live human shield.
That reminds me, I have a lexicon term for this kind of undertaking: Hesiod phrenology.
Posted by: dipnut at February 14, 2003 at 03:43 PMI wonder what ol' Soddom (yes it is a deliberate mispelling) will do with them when the bombing starts. Actually I kinda fear for the idiots.
Posted by: Kris at February 14, 2003 at 05:10 PMCheck oout my site if you want to know whether the human sheilds will be going out with a whimper or a bang.
Posted by: Charles Austin at February 14, 2003 at 10:29 PM"American and European peace activists wrapped their arms around posts on a bridge over the Tigris River on Thursday..."
"I have no intention of being a martyr," Canadian Roberta Taman said."
Okay. I'll stop here. What a dumbass these idiots are. The Saddman's gonna blow up bridges. Who you gonna blame...? Maybe they just want to star on "Six Feet Under". Sorry, these SHIeldTs ain't gonna do nothin but make their momma's cry. And the lefties are gonna rant and rave about 'mericans killing innocents. Sorry, those blow brains aiding and abetting the Saddman should just join Saddman's concentric circles of el toro caca.
As for myself, I wish our men and women of the multinational armed forces the best of luck.
Posted by: billw at February 17, 2003 at 04:48 PM"I have no intention of being a martyr," Canadian Roberta Taman said."
This sums up the Anti-War left so well. "We stand by our Principles...as long as it doesn't hurt too much."
Fortunately this is why they can't win. They can be easily manipulated by Hussein now, but good luck finding them when all hell breaks loose.
They have the courage of their luxury, but real suffering is beyond them.
Posted by: Rogue Prince at February 17, 2003 at 05:34 PMWhat they intended to do doesn't matter now. I'm quite sure that Saddams "minders" will more than likely shoot these idiots once the war starts. Then dump their bodies in the rubble, crying croccodile tears about the martyrs to peace killed by Mr. Bush. Count on it. They won't be allowed to run home, they bought a one way ticket. They might as well as stayed home and shot themselves in the head.
Posted by: puggs at February 17, 2003 at 06:06 PMCoupla thoughts:
1. Why is Granby (dipnut's analysis subject) going around holding a gun? I thought these folks believed in peace?
2. It seems that Taman's philosophy is closer to, "We won't sacrifice for our principles, and we'll condemn you if you're willing to do it for yours."
3. Which raises the question, "Why AREN'T you willing to be martyrs for your cause?" Which is actually a serious question. Is there really nothing that you believe in that is worth dying for? Nothing at all? That's fine, but then, why are you there?
Posted by: Dean at February 17, 2003 at 09:49 PMIn yet another call for idealized world, wouldn't it be great if the Liberals of the world deemed Baghdad as the "Mecca of Compassion" and did their own version of a pilgrimage to see it RIGHT before the bombs dropped? It's hard to pity someone that CHOOSES to put their head in the alligator's mouth.
Posted by: Casey at February 18, 2003 at 12:33 AMBillE:
Actually, there WERE those who opposed Clinton on both Kosovo and Bosnia. Those on the Left seemed to fall into a coupla categories:
1. The "America is an empire" crowd. There were charges that the US was after "the largest gold mine in Europe," that the US was intent on dominating the area for, wait for it, oil (something about oil fields in Kosovo, iirc), that the US was simply intent on acting as an empire. The ANSWER types were there, too. Ramsey Clark and company happily sided w/ Milosevic.
2. The "War is never the answer" crowd. The truly pacifist crowd opposed the war, as well. They became much more vocal when we bombed the Kosovo refugee caravan, but there were some who argued that the region had been hating each other a long time, and intervention was hardly going to solve anything.
'Course, these were MUCH smaller than the current anti-war crowd.
But one has to wonder the extent to which conservatives opposed going in b/c it was Bubba Clinton, rather than someone they could trust more. The "Wag the Dog" references were flying fairly quick, iirc.
('Course, it would've helped if Clinton had listed some kind of nat'l interest behind the intervention, which he never did....)
Posted by: Dean at February 18, 2003 at 01:19 AMHuman shields are nothing to worry about. It's those human swords and maces that you have to watch for.
Posted by: David Perron at February 19, 2003 at 02:41 PM