Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack
I almost forgot about the liberals HUMAN SHIELD fiasco! That is so funny how they got out of Iraq right before the bombing started. They were also surprised that Saddam took them at their word and started placing them at high priority targets.
"Hey guys... they are really going to use us as human shields and not mouth pieces for the anti-war movement."
When those idiots came back they had their YELLOW tails between their legs. My favorite comment from one of them was
"It wasn't what we expected. They did not treat us that well."
What did you expect dip ----, you're a human shield, when a cruise missle comes over the horizon try and catch it before it hits my anti-aircraft battery.
I almost forgot about that too.
I found this....kinda long, but not really.
www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2852 (external - login to view)
"Human Shields: The Moral Ideal?
by Michael J. Hurd (June 28, 2003)
Shortly before the recent Gulf War II, a number of young Americans went to Iraq to commit the ultimate act of self-sacrifice: to act as human shields (against American bombs) on behalf of Saddam Hussein.
This can leave no doubt about the ultimate motive of the most fervent anti-war activists (and, to a lesser degree, their friends at home): the moral code of self-sacrifice. It makes both logical and psychological sense that such people hate the United States, because in their eyes (and correctly so, relative to the rest of the world) the United States represents self-interest and individualism. These extreme anti-war activists might not love Saddam Hussein, but to them he's a heck of a lot closer to their ideal of self-sacrifice than is the United States with its emphasis on the self-interested pursuit of personal happiness.
In a particularly disgusting interview by the fawning mainstream media, a CNBC reporter asked Nathan Chapman, a 20-year-old who volunteered to be a human shield for Saddam Hussein, how he would like to be remembered if he died. Chapman replied,
"Well, I think [we] will be remembered as … strong anti-war protesters and … really wake people up to the fact that this war is wrong and just how far the President is willing to push this, to [the point of] killing white Westerners."
Interesting and revealing.
This anti-war "human shield" for Saddam thinks that the war is about how many whites you kill or non-whites you kill. He's incapable of thinking outside of this established, liberal box. It doesn't even occur to him that the war is about defending freedom and individual rights for all who want it -- white and nonwhite, Westerner or not. The anti-war types would consider Bush to be the racist, but they in fact are the ones making race the primary and central consideration in nearly every political matter that arises.
The War Against Terrorism should be renamed the War In Defense of Individual Rights. Such a name change would not only be more positive and inspiring; it would also force more of the Nathan Chapmans of the world -- and his elder cohorts in the media and academic establishment -- to stand, once and for all, for what they believe: collective slavery under tyrants such as Saddam Hussein over individual rights according to the American model. To anti-war activists, collective slavery is superior to individual rights because individual rights are selfish. They might, on the surface, claim to be against terrorism and even against Saddam Hussein (as some of the human shields concluded upon deserting him). But in reality they share the same moral code: self-sacrifice as the ideal. The only difference is that the Nathan Chapmans of the world really mean it, while the Saddam Husseins of the world cynically cash in on the willingness of others to sacrifice.
If there were no Nathan Chapmans, there would be no Saddam Husseins. It's something to think about as you ponder how to teach your kids right from wrong. Nathan Chapman was merely following what his elders told him: not to be selfish, and to hold self-sacrifice as the ideal."