Asherman, I agree with your point re: The Ceasefire. I do see this more a for-cause resumption of suspended hostilities than the initiation of new hostilities. As to "The Date", I guess now the buzz centers on 17Mar, but there is no certainty at this end.
It now appears The Human Shields have been relegated to footnote status:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826530928.html
Quote:Body blow as human shields ordered out
March 8 2003
By Paul McGeough
Baghdad
The international "human shield" is on the brink of disintegration after some of its leaders - including Australian Gordon Sloan - said they had been ordered to leave Iraq.
Their numbers had been thinning as war becomes imminent, but on Thursday night came predictions that as many as half the 120 remaining "shields" would quit in the wake of a rowdy meeting with a senior Iraqi figure who they claimed had compromised the autonomy of their volunteer organisation.
timber
You suppose it might have dawned on them that they are dealing with a real, and locally omnipotent dictatorship, Timber? If they come away with a glimmer of an idea of what it is like to live in such a country, their effort may not have been such a waste after all.
Rog, I somehow doubt those sorts would draw any such inference. They anticipated - called for, predicted - thousands of compatriots. They generated dozens. I was particulary amused that they became insensed when The Iraqi Regime had the efrontery to insisty they shield actual likely targets, as opposed to their own preference for protecting schools, hospitals, and orphanages. The shame is they likely will not face prosecution. I note too that there was no sizeable contingent of Arab or other Islamic "Volunteers". That in itself speaks volumes. Truly clueless, truly pointless, truly stupid ... truly predictable.
I somehow doubt also that, when Saddam is toppled and incontravertible evidence of his perfidy comes to light, that any will publicly admit their error. In a way, I share their sentiment; I'm very miuch anti-war. I feel, however, that anti-war protests in this instance would more suitably and profitably have been directed had they been focused on Iraq's intentions, not against those who at last have undertaken the task of bringing Saddam to justice. I see the approach of The Human Shields as akin to holding New York City's Fire Department responsible for the deaths of 9/11.
timber
Oh, it's logic you're wanting. I recently visited a friends home. A more than moderately overweight friend. The refrigerator was filled with Weight Watcher's brands, from which, I concluded that Weight Watcher's products were a direct cause of obesity.
Timber -- What are "Iraq's intentions" that the war protesters should have been focused on? I mean, "intentions" that you can substantiate?
TArtarin, Iraq's intentions are have pretty much been in line with the typical intentions of murderous, tyranical, oppressive regimes everywhere; the crushing of dissent, ethnic cleansing, and a disproportionate assembly of regional power and influence, along with its decade-long outright defiance of the terms of the original Gulf War Ceasefire. While I remain convinced of other nefarious intentions, I'll admit that some dispute exists as to the substance of these matters, and that conclusive evidence may not have been disclosed. I expect there will be many inculpatory revelations concerning Iraqi Intentions and Actions in the coming weeks.
While the end of Saddam is not going to cure all the planet's ills, it will cure one of them. You have to start somewhere.
timber
Timber -- Here's what I don't like (sorry!):
"...I somehow doubt those sorts would draw..." Are you referring to the volunteers in Iraq, the "human shields"? Because if you are you must have missed the photos of them, the interviews with them, the descriptions of them. They are a very diverse group as to nationality, profession, age, and gender. They aren't simply "those sorts"... Who are "those sorts" anyway?
As for Iraq's intentions, as you see them, and the antiwar protests... Obviously, the peace demonstrators are protesting the prospect of war, obviously, not endorsing a dictatorship, obviously!! But you know that. So what makes you say they are? Aren't you indulging in exactly the kind of demagoguery we're hearing so much these days, as in "you're either with me or..."? Why is protesting military action -- a "shock and awe" military action taken against presumed "intentions"! -- somehow the same as condoning cruelty? Isn't military action itself profoundly cruel? What the heck do you think happens in war?!
News on the Mexican "human shields".
As soon as the embassy started evacuation of Mexican nationals, 11 out 13 "human shields" decided to flee Iraq. Only 2 decided to remain: the 29 y.o. philosophy "student" who's always high, and a Catholic nun.
The pair may be crazy, but at least they have some congruence. The other 11 are only ridiculous.
fbaezer, they've participated in the cheapening of the gesture. So have a significant number of others of "those sorts", regardless their nationality, ethicity, ideology, or cola preference. No doubt among those who chose to stay are the truly principled and the merely mad. There is a great deal of madness attendent upon war, rather more, in fact, than principle.
timber, the best of luck for your son.
Hope he returns soon and safe.
Why don't some of these "human shields" ride busses in Tel Aviv?
Good question, nelsonn. I have to wonder too where are the crowds of protestors rallying against murderous, tyranical dictators and other human-rights criminals? And howdy ... I don't think I've met you yet. Glad to see you here.
fbaezer, thank you for your thoughts. I am glued to the news reports.
