It's all the same in the end, isn't it?

I wish the cruise missile would have hit too. No, really, if I had my druthers, I wish the son of bitch would just die of a heart attack right after killing both his sons. But guess what? Easy answers don't usually fall from the sky like rain. Even when we chant for it to like at Woodstock.

Nope, easy answers don't fall from the sky.

And we can chant like we at Woodstock or we can bitch and moan and complain about wasting a couple of dozen cruise missiles on some empty tents in the desert.

Personally, I prefer to do neither - glass houses and stones and all that bs.

But I'm not going to allow the statement "there was no other way" to go unchallenged. There were other ways, we chose not to do them. That's fine. Grow up and accept the consequences of the decision.

Do you acknowledge that there may be some validity to the notion that maybe a small (maybe large) percentage of the Iraqi people really do want their President gone, but are too afraid to speak up? And following that logic, opposing the war indeed does suggest supporting Hussein? At least from the Iraqi civilian perspective?

I'll certainly grant that there may be a large group of Iraqies who want to be free from Hussein.

Now, why should *I* care? I'm not Hussein and I'm not Iraq and I don't give a freakin' damn if they're free or not. If they don't like their goverment, let them go free THEMSELVES.

Freedom is earned. Our military has spilt their blood for ours. Why do we have to spill it to free THEM?

I screwed up by pointing to only the last paragraph in my secondary post. I cite quoted the last two paragraphs, the first gave context, the last contained the inflamatory statement. In context, the naive "human shield" realized that by opposing the war, they were indeed (unwittingly) supporting Hussein. The logic is not twisted. Want to twist it?

Sure...I can do that...

The logic is only twisted if your initial assertion - that this is the only option available to us - is correct.

What if, said "Human Shield" because he is in Iraq, suddenly comes to his senses and realizes that the only way to really help the Iraq people from being bombed and killed is to kill Saddam Hussein - trading one life for many.

Since he is "trusted" (for their stupidity) he immediately grab a rifle from a nearby guard and place 3 bullets into Saddam Hussein's brain killing him instantly. He realizes he's done a wonderful service for the people of Iraq as his guards open fire turning him into swiss cheese.

Did he oppose war? Or did he unwitting support Saddam Hussein?

In any case, I do agree with you (believe it or not). The said "Human Shields" (at least the ones from the US) are allowed to disagree and oppose the war, in my opinion. (And I do not classify that as support Saddam Hussein, YMMV).

However, travelling to Iraq and placing themselves in harm's way, they are attempting to oppose the will of the government and are actively (IMO) attempting to subvert the will of the government from being executed. I disagree with their actions.

Anticipating your next move in advance,

Screamer

Good luck.