Marijuana.com

NEWBSMOKER

I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam
I wanted to join the human shields in Baghdad because it was direct action which had a chance of bringing the anti-war movement to the forefront of world attention. It was inspiring: the human shield volunteers were making a sacrifice for their political views - much more of a personal investment than going to a demonstration in Washington or London. It was simple - you get on the bus and you represent yourself.
So that is exactly what I did on the morning of Saturday, January 25. I am a 23-year-old Jewish-American photographer living in Islington, north London. I had travelled in the Middle East before: as a student, I went to the Palestinian West Bank during the intifada. I also went to Afghanistan as a photographer for Newsweek.
The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldn't say that I was exactly pro-war - no, I am ambivalent - but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed.
We on the bus felt that we were sympathetic to the views of the Iraqi civilians, even though we didn't actually know any. The group was less interested in standing up for their rights than protesting against the US and UK governments.
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.
As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.
It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: "Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I'm not with the CIA - I just can't help you."
Of course I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. I told a few journalists who I knew. They said that this sort of thing often happened - spontaneous, emotional, and secretive outbursts imploring visitors to free them from Saddam's tyrannical Iraq.
I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others. Once over the border we felt comfortable enough to ask our driver what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment.
"Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?" he said. "Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam."
We just sat, listening, our mouths open wide. Jake, one of the others, just kept saying, "Oh my God" as the driver described the horrors of the regime. Jake was so shocked at how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn't occurred to anyone that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war.
The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...equestid=271711

 

HappyMan

Can anyone deny that Saddam is a terrible, ghastly man?

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

CrazyHair

First of all the telegraph is a traditionally conservative newspaper, so don't even try to act like that's any form of unbiased news (though I know that page in particular is for opinions not information). Second, the man speaking in that article said nothing, for or against any war or government that reflects my views. In fact it sounded to me like someone pro war trying to place themselves in the shoes of their percieved stereotype of a liberal or just about anyone against the war.

I know of all the things he said, I know about the views of the Iraqis, I'd be trying to get Saddam the hell out of their too. But you seem to be skirting around the point with this article. I don't support Saddam or his government, I don't think the Iraqi people do either. That's a pitiful representation of what someone thinks is my point of view. My anti-war thoughts and words are based in the need to control my government. How many times do I have to say this? Dubya and all the hawks in my country (whether or not they have positions of power) are not just opening a pandora's box of imperialism and unchallenged power but they are trying to set a precedent so that they can do it again whenever they wish. My words are not 'war bad, bush bad, iraq good', my words are the truth, based in reason, and my proof is history.

Oh, and doesn't anyone else find it strange that a bunch of seemingly random people are posting pro war threads all over a forum about marijuana? One or two threads are fine because this issue is important to a lot of people, but this is a little fishy, especially since these people came here and posted these things and not much else.

__________________
Freedom is free, war costs 165 billion dollars... at last count.

Charon

NEWBSMOKER


Thanks for bringing a personal insight to us. Much of what you described has been widely disputed, and I do belive it to the fullest extent.

For those who oppose war, I also donot like the prospect of war. But there are times when war is a nessary evil that must be taken to ensure for the greater good.


Charon

S2

This is a consistant theme amongst the human shields that have quickly fled Iraq once they discovered that the Iraqi people dont want anything to stand in the way of the elimination of Saddam's regime. (actually, it is only those shields who have had an opportunity to speak with Iraqis in the absence of their govenrment "minders) A minister had a video tape of some average Iraqis offering this opinion that he smuggled out when he fled. FWIW: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/5491552.htm

Sure, the antis can claim that these are faked or a rare exception, just as they can claim that no nation has joined in this action except due to coercion or bribery on the part of the US. I am confident that once Saddam is gone, the truth will overwhelm their arguments (BTW, the story from the minister was in the NY Times and Wash. Post-- two bastions of conservative opinion, eh?)

As far as imperialism goes. I predict the day maybe 5plus years from now, long after the US has left Iraq in the hands of it's new government when some new despot overtakes the place and the US gets blamed for arming them in the first place. Just as the US is currently blamed for arming Saddam and Osama.

We dont take over countries. We attempt to set up governments that respect freedom and liberty to the extent that their culture supports it, then we leave and try like hell to keep the freedom going via diplomacy and the UN. We allow these same governments to evolve or revolt back to tyranny rather than keeping them free at th threat of violence.

The freindliness to the US that these new govts display is only due to the fact that the initial Ideal to which they aspire is liberty and we are a visible and consistent defender of liberty.

If we were imperial and colonial, we would still be in possession of Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, etc. etc.

We dont invade every dictator just for the hell of it. If they play nice on the world stage, we dont tend to meddle in their internal affairs-- thing is very few tyranical dicatorships can create an environment that is even remotely able to support their citizens and these regimes then start to blame the outside world-- and those most contrary to their "philosophy" and who are most economically successful as the cause of their situation, especially if these same freedom loving nations are urging the rest of the free world to refrain form engaging in trade and aid to these countries to demonstrate the consequences of their actions.

The dicatatorship has fewer and fewer resources and must confiscate a higher and higher percentage of them in order to maintain power by force in the face of steadily growing hostility amongst their populace. Cuba may be the lone exception, but they dont exactly have a vibrant economy down there and plenty of theri people risk their lives to getthe hell out and to the US.

You watch, I think Saddams swan song will be to unleash his WMDs on his own populace in order to make this action incredibly costly in terms of the worlds opinion of the US.

While this should demonstrate once and for all the he has them and would usethem anywhere and on anyone-- the sad fact is the world (especially the arab world) is likely to fall for his ploy and leave him blameless for the tragedy.

Who are we to be the ones to decide? I dunno. Many a witness to a violent crime on the streets of our cities have allowed the event to happen just by doing nothing-- by deciding it is not for them to get involved in evil being perpetrated right before their eyes. By deciding that "someone else" will step in. And in the end there is no voice except that of the dying victim.

We are an imperfect nation, yet millions of people around the world yearn to get here so they can act and think freely and through their own efforts make a reasonable life for themselves and their families.

 

CrazyHair

S2, you didn't respond to what I said, you simply responded to what you thought I would probably say. I said I know how the Iraqis feel (many of them, possibly a majority but there's no proof either way). That's not why I oppose this war. Once the fogs of war are lifted and this is over a lot of things will come to light, one of them will be that America isn't going to stop with Iraq.

Speaking of the 'fogs of war', Saddam (who may or may not have any chemical weapons) wouldn't use them at all if he and his country weren't being attacked, he may do horrible things on the way out but it wouldn't happen at all if not for this war.

We are not liberators figting for freedom, once we started this we became just as bad as Saddam, one overly powerful government against another.

S2

CH, I wasn't conversing with you or responding to your post, just posting some opinions that are (somewhat) consitant with the theme of this thread. I assure you that never did it remotely cross my mind to consider what you "would probably say". Just as I would not claim to "know" what Iraqis think or feel-- I only know what is reported in that regard, which I thn compare against my personal experience to develop my opinion as to the report's credibility.

I think that in addition to the obvious and moral aspects of this action, the fact that other terrorist supporting states will getthe message that this could occur to them is a very benifical message-- I dont think that is the primary aim of this war but I hope they do get that message.

Any government that supports the kind of people who have or would do what was done on 9/11 is a fair target for overthrow IMO.

CrazyHair

Even when we were actually fighting for a good cause the terrorists took advantage of hatred towards America to justify their actions. Now that we are fighting a war that people have a legitimate beef with you think that's going to stop anyone? We are killing to stop killing and ulitmately only planting the seeds of hatred in a new generation of middle-easterners. If the message is that we are hostile and are willing to attack anyone we don't like then yes, we got it across all right.

And rather than accuse you of misrepresenting my point of view (as that article and many others have) I should have tried to get you to respond in the first place. How is doing what we've done for years but on a grander scale going to convince anyone that doesn't like us to change their mind?

S2

What we have done for years is appeasement and we have emboldened our enemies--what we are doing now is NOT what we have been doing in the recent past.

We are not eliminating terroists, we are eliminating a likely source for them to acquire terrible weapons to use against us.

I for one am willing to risk domestic terrorist attacks as a cost of this war. That is not to say I personally desire to stand at the side of a suicide bomber to demonstrate my solidarity, rather I refuse to use that fear to limit the actions that will limit the long term success and impact of terrorists.

Fact is, the terroists will continue to strike whenever they can, regardless of what we are doing in Iraq-- they may ascribe the war as their motive but in fact all they need is opportunity-- their motive has been established in their minds.

CrazyHair

First of all I've still seen no proof that Saddam supports any form of terrorism, he supports it openly with his words but that's just to gain support from his neighbors, he could care less what happens to us at this point, no, if we weren't attacking his country he would care less. He may hate us with a passion but he was never stupid enough to try and take us on after the first gulf war. Your only possible proof of him supporting terrorism are the words of our leaders, words that I'm not about to take at face value.

And second, I don't know about any particular government but you are supporting a 9/11 like attack.

A shock and awe attack: