[quote=“Richardm”]There’s protests all around. Why would anyone expect these people to go kill themselves for nothing?
[/quote]
Yeah. I mean, a lot of “those” folks were mighty riled up about the alleged disenfranchisement in Florida! And that alleged disenfranchisement didn’t even involve any bombings or beheadings…
Where is their ire now at the murderous insurgency and compassion for the poor people of Iraq who only want to cast their vote in peace?
They are called US soldiers and they’re armed and dangerous.
As the phrase so eloquently puts it…“You’re damn skippy!”
The number of people who were serious about going to Iraq to act as shields were not numerous compared to the protesters at large. Conflating the two and then arguing that the majority are cowardly because they will not risk their lives, is spurious. The majority never had any intention of risking their lives, just like the majority of those supporting the war knew they would never be asked to make a personal sacrifice either.
As Richard said, most protesters were trying to change goverment policy. They have no chance of changing insurgency policy in Iraq. How exactly are they to act as shields? While an American standing in front of a house may stop the military from bombing that house, an American standing in front of an Iraqi voter will just be shot first.
There is absolutely nothing spurious about these questions raised.
It is a fact that when the US and its coalition partners were preparing to begin bombing Iraq in preparation to invading Iraq, a number of organizations and individuals made a very big stink of going to Iraq to act as “human shields”. Their stated purpose was to protect the Iraqi people and vital infrastructure from devestation expected from US bombing.
It is not only legitimate now to wonder why there are now no human shields running off to protect the Iraqis as they bravely attempt to put democracy into practice for the first time… the lack of human shields is conspicuous and cries out for questioning.
Likewise, there were many peace protests and marches when the US and its coalition partners were preparing for and in the act of invading Iraq. The protesters claimed to want peace for the Iraqi people. Great. So where are they now that the Iraqi people are trying to establish a peaceful nation and attempting to vote in free elections? Do those protesters no longer concerned for the Iraqi people and peace in Iraq?
You better believe their silence at this time says something.
There are no excuses for this deafening silence now. None that I can think of.
and there was no chance to change us iraq policy by protesting in france, germany, or even taiwan. but people went out and did it anyway.
if people would protest against the war(in order to save iraqi lives, so they said) in taiwan, why won’t they protest against insurgent bombs in taiwan?
Well…I heard this guy was ready to go to Iraq…
I see now. Why didn’t they protest the mother fucking tsunami?
Touche, Ricardo.
And who was responsible for the tsunami?
And who was responsible for the tsunami?[/quote]
India and Israel.
(Apparently.)
“Why didn’t they protest the mother f***ing tsunami?” - Richarm
i will be sure to use that as a quote the next time the subject of some anti-war/anti-globalization/anti-us protest comes up. 
[quote=“Flipper”]“Why didn’t they protest the mother f***ing tsunami?” - Richarm
I will be sure to use that as a quote the next time the subject of some anti-war/anti-globalization/anti-US protest comes up. [/quote]
I still think that Richard is making a coherent point: people generally protest to try to encourage some kind of policy change, and that a protest wouldn’t stop the insurgents from murdering their fellow Iraqis in the streets any more than a protest would stop the damage caused by the Tsunami.
I’m not sure if I agree with him 100% (my limited personal experience indicates that many (but certainly not all) people often protest with more selfish and immature motives: to show off how cool and and superior they think they are, to feel important, rightous, sophisticated etc). But even if I don’t fully agree with him I don’t think it’s an outrageous point to make.
One of the great things about Richard’s position is that it is a great reminder of what is on the line for the Iraqis. Protesting a government (under Richard’s view) is an acknowledgement that the government is at some level responsive to the will of the people. Protesting US foreing policy in Germany or France is an acknowledgement that “Yes, the Bush administration be less impressed one-way-or-the-other by what people in Europe think – but their voices may still have some influence on US policy.” Plenty of governments in the world would not only not care what protesters thought, but (if they were domestic protesters) might well have a number of the protesters shot. This happened not that long ago, not that far from here.
Anyway, that’s the way that I read Richard’s remark.
[quote=“Hobbes”][quote=“Flipper”]“Why didn’t they protest the mother f***ing tsunami?” - Richarm
I will be sure to use that as a quote the next time the subject of some anti-war/anti-globalization/anti-US protest comes up. 
[/quote]
I still think that Richard is making a coherent point: people generally protest to try to encourage some kind of policy change, and that a protest wouldn’t stop the insurgents from murdering their fellow Iraqis in the streets any more than a protest would stop the damage caused by the Tsunami.
I’m not sure if I agree with him 100% (my limited personal experience indicates that many (but certainly not all) people often protest with more selfish and immature motives: to show off how cool and and superior they think they are, to feel important, rightous, sophisticated etc). But even if I don’t fully agree with him I don’t think it’s an outrageous point to make.
One of the great things about Richard’s position is that it is a great reminder of what is on the line for the Iraqis. Protesting a government (under Richard’s view) is an acknowledgement that the government is at some level responsive to the will of the people. Protesting US foreing policy in Germany or France is an acknowledgement that “Yes, the Bush administration be less impressed one-way-or-the-other by what people in Europe think – but their voices may still have some influence on US policy.” Plenty of governments in the world would not only not care what protesters thought, but (if they were domestic protesters) might well have a number of the protesters shot. This happened not that long ago, not that far from here.
Anyway, that’s the way that I read Richard’s remark.[/quote]
Hobbes,
I agree with you and I agree that Richard probably means just that.
However, I find it frustrating when this attitude (can’t do anything about it) wins over. Its terribly defeatist… to quote the Grateful Dead:
There is nothing in the hands of many people right now… only in their minds and on their lips are defeatist thoughts and statements. When it was clear that the US was going to invade, they mobilized in “support” of the Iraqi people (I think they actually were mobilizing against Bush).
I truly believe that both the Iraqi people and the insurgent terrorists are watching world (and particularly US) opinion and interest in what goes on in Iraq. The Iraqi people would like to know that we mean to stand with them (unlike recent history when we abandoned them) and the insurgent terrorists look to ascertain our will as well.
So, some folks were opposed to Bush and the invasion. Fine. Get over it. If there is truly concern for the Iraqi people then they ought to be behind the current efforts and they ought to be providing at least moral support to the Iraqi people. Instead, all they offer is pronouncements that there is no chance of success in Iraq.
Great. That really is helpful… 
Honestly, it is difficult to conclude anything other than that some people are indeed hoping for failure. Not saying that of anyone here… but…
How utterly pathetic is that?
There is absolutely nothing spurious about these questions raised.[/quote]
Nice sleight of hand but I said the conflation is spurious. And it is. Painting all protesters as cowards when the majority never had any intention of risking their lives is sophistic.
Which their acting as human shields may have accomplished against the US military. It will not work against Iraqi insurgents, so again, as Richard has said, you might as well ask why these people are not protesting the tsunami.
[quote]
now to wonder why there are now no human shields running off to protect the Iraqis as they bravely attempt to put democracy into practice for the first time… the lack of human shields is conspicuous and cries out for questioning.[/quote]
It cries out for questioning does it? Why? You already have your answer. I guess the cry is just part of the rhetoric.
Off topic but I have to comment that it is very strange how the revelation of widespread torture, the finding of memos sanctioning extreme interrogation techniques from the new AG, the lack of planning for the occupation, or the fact that the man (Rumsfeld) who made poor choice after poor choice was never held accountable, strange how these matters never cried out for questioning.
No, no, some silly irrelevant prostesters do not have a coherent moral system. Now THAT is something to get worked up about.
[quote]
Likewise, there were many peace protests and marches when the US and its coalition partners were preparing for and in the act of invading Iraq. The protesters claimed to want peace for the Iraqi people. Great. So where are they now that the Iraqi people are trying to establish a peaceful nation and attempting to vote in free elections? Do those protesters no longer concerned for the Iraqi people and peace in Iraq?
You better believe their silence at this time says something.
There are no excuses for this deafening silence now. None that I can think of.[/quote]
Some claimed they wanted peace for the Iraqis but a good majority just did not want the US to get involved in another foreign adventure. These people, isolationsists, have nothing to apologize now for not rallying for the Iraqi democratic cause.
Agreed to some extent Muzhaman, but I have to say those that organized peace protests and had candlelight vigils are in fact worthy of our complete and utter contempt. These individuals know who they are and what they were protecting. They also know full well that their bravery and commitment to their “values” is ludicrously and hopelessly compromised by their positions. Peace? What peace in Iraq? When? 1979? 1983? 1991? 1996? 1999? 2002? When and where was this peace that they were fighting to protect? Scandalous. Shameless. Moral Whores.
I’ve been trying to find a story about all the bushies that are flocking to Iraq to act as human shields. Could it be that the peace protesters care more about peace than the right wingers care about war? That’s hard to believe.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is “being less than honest” or using “sleight of hand”.
I stated that there is nothing spurious about the questions raised (in this thread). There is no conlating the issues.
People have asked 1) where are the human shields and 2) where are the protestors.
Yes, a few of FS’s posts are not crystal clear… he doesn’t differentiate between human shields and run-of-the-mill peace marchers… but, its clear that he is not saying that the regular peace marchers are cowards for not going to Iraq now as human shields. The complaint that FS and I have is that these people, human shields and regular peace marchers are niether acting as shields nor marching for peace NOW.
If I didn’t want to give you the benefit of the doubt I would accuse you of purposely obfuscating the issue… but, I’m not that way… 
How do you know? And my question has also touched on the complete lack of action and or voice… even if these folks do not go stand in harm’s way… where is their moral support for the Iraqi people now? Is it too much to hope for, that these same folks who were brave enough to place themselves in harm’s way (well, OK, we know they really didn’t do any such thing… but, the show was good for morale, wasn’t it?) might now offer moral support for the Iraqi people, even from a safe distance? Is that too much to ask? Instead, we see nothing but statements predicting failure. Wow. Thanks for nothing.
The rhetoric? I don’t think so. I think what this lack of action and or support shows is that the initial acts and protests were little more than “rhetoric”.
These matters are not being questioned? Oh, they are being questioned…
Irrelevant? Sorry, I disagree with your characterization of these folks. I actually believe in what many of them say they believe… i.e., that people can make a difference… especially in democratic societies. If they would mobilize now in support (even if only vocal and moral) for the Iraqi people, I think this would be regarded by the Iraqi people as a sign that the US and other nations are indeed committed to helping the Iraqis stand up for themselves. Sorry that you consider so many people “irrelevant”.
[quote]Likewise, there were many peace protests and marches when the US and its coalition partners were preparing for and in the act of invading Iraq. The protesters claimed to want peace for the Iraqi people. Great. So where are they now that the Iraqi people are trying to establish a peaceful nation and attempting to vote in free elections? Do those protesters no longer concerned for the Iraqi people and peace in Iraq?
You better believe their silence at this time says something.
There are no excuses for this deafening silence now. None that I can think of.[/quote]
Well then, where are these people now?
Isolationists? Maybe some of them. But, c’mon. Surely you do not believe that all or even most of these folks are isolationists… do you?
[quote=“Hobbes”]I still think that Richard is making a coherent point: people generally protest to try to encourage some kind of policy change, and that a protest wouldn’t stop the insurgents from murdering their fellow Iraqis in the streets any more than a protest would stop the damage caused by the Tsunami.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t read that much into it.
I don’t blame “human shields” for not going into iraq now, as the insurgents have no respect for human life, this respect on the part of the us government is the only thing that made this tactic possible. i won’t fault them for this as long as they don’t try to tell me they were brave.
i will note however that it was deemed worthwhile to protest against the people who respect life, while those who have no respect are greeted with a deafening silence.
if there were feeling against the insurgents, who have no qualms about murdering human shields, women, children, or anyone else who gets in their way, it could be advantageous to protest against the shameful inaction of certain countries around the world in this matter.
In addition, if the protesters cannot directly affect the insurgents, i could also argue they have almost as little chance of affecting the us government.
so i certainly wouldn’t say the lack of protest is because of any sense of helplessness. i would say it is simply because they don’t give a shit.
Sounds like they need “human shields” in Australia.
[quote]
Bomb scare shuts polling station
A SYDNEY polling booth for Iraqis voting in their country’s historic election was shut down for an hour today after a punch-up involving protesters and a subsequent bomb scare.
Organiser of Australia’s overseas voting program, Bernie Hogan, said the fight erupted when a group of around 20 protesters started yelling at voters leaving the Auburn centre.
Mr Hogan said they were holding the same black flag with white lettering that has appeared as a backdrop in videos released by Iraqi insurgents featuring foreign hostages begging for their lives.
International Organisation for Migration Iraqi adviser Thair Wali said the protesters’ flag and Arabic slogans identified them as Wahabis, or followers of an austere brand of Sunni Islam practised mostly in Saudi Arabia.
Mr Wali said the fight was sparked by protesters taking photographs of voters leaving the station.
“This is scary for the people, taking photos of the voting” he said.[/quote]