'IRAQ USING HUMAN SHIELDS'

Headline news from Sky News - Witness the event ^ | 3/25/03

[merak]

Do they have teargas over there or is it the case that only cops have teargas and soldiers aren't allowed to use it?

[md2576]

That's a ridiculous statement! How did you get that I blame America out of what I said?

[sweetliberty]

"Marines using bomblets"

Bomblet?? What is a bomblet? It sounds like a party favor! LOL!

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

A sniper dropping an Iraqi soldier after 20 minutes is preferable than having a dead Iraqi soldier, a dead Iraqi kid, and a wounded Brit because we had to take him right now.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Tear gas is a prohibited chemical agent under the Geneva Convention. Can be too easily used as a cover for nerve agents.

[FatherOfLiberty]

I'm sorry, I didn't get the part about the innocent Iraqi citizens "turning on us".

I'm not advocating allowing Iraqi soldiers to advance and shoot with impunity at our soldiers just because they have a civilian in front of them. The paradox is that ONE innocent civilian, forced to walk in front of an Iraqi soldier, has the exact same value as ONE American or British soldier. All measures should be taken to TRY to protect the life of the INNOCENT civilian. Obviously, if there is no choice, then may God be with the civilian. Just make sure the cowardly Iraqi soldier is ripped to shreds so he can meet Allah post haste.

My concern with the statement is the apparent dirt-dog value given to the innocent civilian - that's the racist part.

[Rocky]

He was talking about that Hispanic woman Esposo de la Abogada. You don't want to mess with her.

[breakem]

Since Iraqis and the majority of Americans are in the same race, would you please explain what is racist about that guys statement. I'm a little slow on the uptake.

[LouD]

That is one of the most racist remarks I've read on FreeRepublic. You should be ashamed.

Technically speaking, it would be a nationalist remark, not a racist one.

[md2576]

Once again, a "turn Baghdad to Glass" position is calling someone who supports this war a turncoat for saying the troops are right for not killing human shields.
There can be no half ass here. Either we spare civilians or we obliterate the country. I like what we have chosen.....so far.

[Rome2000]

Want to know why we have had less than 20 combat dead so far? Patience.

Sure, but there is a point at which you have to go in and take the cities eventually, and when that happens the Iraqis and the whole Arab world must be made aware through their media that any civilians caught in the crossfire are their fault and not ours.

Thats why we need to follow Gingrichs advice and go to the UN, France and Al Jazeera and have them get out the word that civilians must be allowed to leave the cities in a period of days or the Iraqi regime will be responsible for the consequences.

[md2576]

"Sure, but there is a point at which you have to go in and take the cities eventually"

I disagree, I think taking out the regime first would eliminate the need to invade every city fighting.

[sweetliberty]

I don't see the "racist" either. Just a matter of priorities. Anyway, you haven't heard anything yet. Just wait till PETA starts shrieking about the abuse of innocent dolphins by using them to help locate underwater mines.

[jrushing]

The socialist shields went running off in the night!

Yesh, they're real chickens. Don't they know that maxi-shields don't run??

Read this.

Reality Stuns 'Human Shield': 'Saddam Was a Monster' http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/24/95147

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

That sounds reasonable

but

there is no way to move civilians out of those areas if the regime wants them to stay. We could not even evacuate a city the size of Saint Louis with military help in a three day period. The logistics would be a mess. The elderly, children, the sick, they would all slow down any evacuation.

Nope, bypass and contain is the best way to do this. In 6 days we have cut off several major towns, including Basra, and it now appears that we are within a few days of taking complete control. Patience. After Basra, we keep going north and methodically take control of another large town every other day or so.

At the end, we have a bunch of dead Saddam-ites, a bunch of alive happy Iraqis, and a bunch of soldiers who won't have nightmares of civilians falling under a hail of bullets from their rifles. Everyone, but Saddam and his supporters, win.

[Centurion2000]

That is one of the most racist remarks I've read on FreeRepublic

If you don't value our soldiers lives, take a hike jerk.

One of our soldiers is worth MORE than a division of their soldiers, or their civilians. F%^& Iraq. We're not there to be nice guys.

[ScholarWarrior]

This is abhorrent to me, we should not be this uncaring.

I bid only 10,000.

[dep]

and yet people can't imagine why we need people trained with nice, scoped .308s.

dep

[dep]

Yes, I doubt this soldier could easily kill this kid if placed in front of an enemy soldier as a shield. How would we feel if our police decided to sacrifice all hostages just to easily get to an ultimate goal.

unless basra is held by the elite midget brigade, the soldier would just need to shoot the guy in the part above the kid.

dep