Good Question

  •  January 30, 2005

As we count down the hours to Iraq’s first-ever free election one of Michelle Malkin’s readers poses an excellent question.

Why don’t we see the human shields at the polls in Iraq? They were willing to protect Iraq from bombs before the war started. Why aren’t they protecting Iraq now?

Its because they aren’t so much for the Iraqi’s (or democracy, for that matter) but rather against President Bush and/or war in general.

Tags:


«
»
  • Jadegold

    “This is an exquisite moment in history, alright… not a berlin wall moment of course, but not too bad at all…”

    In reality, it means nothing at all if the security situation doesn’t improve.

    And one has to realize these elections have a chance of making things worse by exacerbating regional and religious conflicts.

  • http://www.captainnormal.org/ Don Myers

    I’m hard-pressed to call any election that doesn’t include 40% of the country, barred the nation’s largest opposition party, and is administered by 150,000 foreign troops “free.”

    While I am a huge fan of democracy, it cannot be imposed from without. It just doesn’t work that way.

  • Jadegold

    One should never quote someone who defends the internment of American citizens.

    But here’s where Ms. Maglalang’s logic breaks down: in reality, there are ‘human shields’ present at Iraqi polls. They are the poll workers, Iraqi police, and Iraqi voters.

    Second, Ms. Maglalang’s whining would imply that US forces can be equated with terrorists. Thus, if one thinks she makes a good point, one must also believe the US military is the equivalent of Al Qaeda.

  • http://officesmileman.com/ Joe Brooks

    Poll workers are human sheilds? Wait, I thought the Poll worker was an enemy of Al Qaeda, and was the target of threats on election day?

    Work on that theory of your’s Jadegold. And don’t forget to include Watergate, and Halliburton. (They make your case stronger) Just delusional “anything but the ‘conservative’ point of view” comes out of your yap.

  • http://Array Marty

    The human shields are the United States Army, Marines, the sons and daughters of our neighbors and of our Allies, and tens of thousands of hopeful Iraqis who have volunteered to stand in the face of tryanny.

    Quite a different breed of American than the human shields who stood in their way, 24 months ago…

  • Marty

    Sounds like a great decision on behalf of the Admin, and of course due credit remains with our men and women of arms, who certainly recruited, trained, and protected the brave Iraqi's that are now giving their lives for the freedom of their countrymen.

    This is an exquisite moment in history, alright… not a berlin wall moment of course, but not too bad at all…

    Reading from HumanSheilds.org (now 'inactive' it says):

    when Iraq was invaded human shield volunteers would place themselves at strategic sites critical to the well-being of Iraqi civilians in order to make the bombing of these sites politically untenable.

    That certainly begs the question (and it was a reader's, not Michelle's) "Where are they now?"

  • Jadegold

    Marty: US servicemen are not stationed at polling places. This was actually decided a number of months ago and makes sense. If the election is going to have a whiff of legitimacy–you won't achieve it by having a US E-4 with an M249 standing by the polls.

  • Marty

    And one has to realize these elections have a chance of making things worse by exacerbating regional and religious conflicts.

    I don't doubt that civil war is a very real possibility, but it is never something to avoid at all costs, and arguably, something that's been coming for a long time.

    Revolution is happening now, and will not be stopped. But the price in blood is still anyones guess.

  • likwidshoe

    Don Myers asserts, "While I am a huge fan of democracy, it cannot be imposed from without. It just doesn’t work that way."

    And you think this way why? Proof that "it just doesn't work that way"?

    Jadegold the rude scatterbrain says, "But here’s where Ms. Maglalang’s logic breaks down: in reality, there are ‘human shields’ present at Iraqi polls. They are the poll workers, Iraqi police, and Iraqi voters."

    You know that's not what she's talking about. Don't try to pull a fast on us Jadegold. We can see that you're getting unhinged at the sight of free Iraqis voting and you opposed every action to make it happen. But don't bullshit us, okay?

    Second, Ms. Maglalang’s whining would imply that US forces can be equated with terrorists.

    There you go with that assumption problem of yours.

    Thus, if one thinks she makes a good point, one must also believe the US military is the equivalent of Al Qaeda.

    Only if you didn't understand what she said. Go take English Comprehension 101. Get back to us when you make at least a little bit of sense.

  • Mark

    I think it's somewhat spurious to suggest that the foreign citizens who placed themselves as human shields among civilian populations during the invasion of Iraq should, logically, place themselves at polling stations.

    In 2003, the US military would (quite rightly) have taken care in ensuring that these westerners were not injured.

    But why on earth would the groups who were trying to disrupt the election be at all put off by the presence of westerners at polling stations? If anything, it would probably be an incentive to cause mayhem.

    In short, their presence would be pointless, even detrimental.

    That is the reason for the absence – not some imputed disregard for Iraqi civilians (which is in itself hard to justify, given that they did put themselves in war zone two years ago, whatever one thinks of their politics).

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development