Get a load of this! If bombs fall on these assholes, it's their own fault. I'm basically a Creationist, but there are aspects of Darwinism that make sense.


Canadians go to Baghdad as 'human shields'
Martin O'Malley, CBC News Online | Dec. 5, 2002




Opposition to a war on Iraq has a long way to go before it rivals the draft-card burnings and demonstrations against the war in Vietnam in the 1960s, but a new anti-war movement is growing muscle. Some Canadians already have left for Iraq to serve as human shields against bomb attacks on Baghdad. More will follow before Christmas.

Irene Vandas and Jennifer Ziemann of Vancouver are heading to Iraq on Friday. Vandas, a 32-year-old registered nurse, and Ziemann, a 30-year-old home-care worker, will fly to Amsterdam, board a plane to Amman, Jordan, then drive into Iraq all the way to Baghdad where they will live with Iraqi civilians. There, they will join friends Linda Morgan and Irene MacInnes, two Canadians who travelled to Iraq in mid-November.

The four Canadians, sponsored by an anti-war organization called Voices in the Wilderness, have volunteered to be human shields in an effort to dissuade American-led forces from attacking Iraq. “I’m not too scared,” Vandas told CBC News Online the day before she left. “I think it will be a powerful experience.”

The last time human shields were in the news was during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when NATO accused Yugoslavia President President Slobodan Milosevic of using civilians as human shields at strategic targets, such as bridges and power plants.

Vandas and Ziemann have agreed to stay in Baghdad until the end of December. They will work with two Canadian doctors, Amir Khadir and David Swann, both anti-war activists who have taken up residence in Iraq to protest against U.S. attacks. Vandas said another group of Canadians will go to Iraq later this month, joining some 30-40 young protesters from the U.S. and Britain.

Recent developments:

On Sept. 28, 2002, a crowd of over 150,000 in London marched to Hyde Park to protest against attacks on Iraq. The demonstration was sponsored by the Muslim Association of Britain and Stop the War Coalition.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized the British government for a report on Saddam’s use of torture and summary executions. The two groups usually welcome such documentation of human rights violations, but they criticized the British government for using the report as propaganda to justify an attack on Iraq.
Opposition to an attack on Iraq extends to Yukon, where a rally will be held on Dec. 6, 2002 in front of the Elijah Smith Building in Whitehorse. Protesters intend to march to Yukon MP Larry Bagnell’s office to deliver a message that Canada should stay out of any war in Iraq. “Why is the United States so unwilling to try diplomacy?” asked rally organizer Rohan Quinby.
On Dec. 4, 2002, The Washington Post reported on a poll of 44 countries that suggested “overwhelming majorities” in France, Germany and Russia oppose military force to end Saddam Hussein’s rule.


It isn’t a matter of groundswell support or sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Rather, the new anti-war movement zeroes in on the fear that any campaign against Iraq – especially the expected urban warfare on the streets of Baghdad – would imperil the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

The Washington Post story on “public attitudes” of other countries regarding the U.S. says large majorities in Britain, France, Germany and Russia believe Saddam is a threat to stability in the Middle East and a danger to world peace. But this consensus collapses when it comes to a military attack on Iraq.

“Overwhelming majorities in France, Germany and Russia oppose the use of military force to end Saddam’s rule,” the newspaper says. “Even in Great Britain, America’s staunchest ally on Iraq, opinion is sharply divided: fewer than half – 47 per cent – favor using force to oust Hussein, while an equal proportion disagree.”

Jo Wood, a psychology professor at Carleton University, says groups across Canada are raising money to fund a “national peace coalition” against a war on Iraq. As for the Canadians going to Baghdad, Wood says, “…they are prepared to risk their own lives by standing with the Iraqi people and positioning themselves at important public facilities, such as water plants and hospitals, in an effort to protect these against the bombs.”

As for those who condemn Saddam but profess support for the Iraqi people, Wood told CBC News Online that the Iraqi people get hurt either way. “All efforts to hurt Saddam hurt the Iraqi people much more and weaken them so that they cannot find their own resources to make a better world for themselves,” she said.



Mainstream media so far haven’t made much of the anti-war movement building against an attack on Iraq.

Stephen O’Leary, a contributing scholar to Online Journalism Review, wrote a story on Oct. 17, 2002, titled The Antiwar Movement on the Web. “If you get your news by reading newspapers and watching television, you won’t find much coverage of the antiwar movement,” O’Leary said. “But on the Web, there’s plenty of evidence of a global grassroots sentiment opposing the war.”

O’Leary mentioned the anti-war rally in London, when police estimated the crowd at 150,000 but organizers of the demonstration estimated the crowd to be 400,000. “In any case,” he said in his OJR article, “the demonstrations were mostly ignored by the American press.”

Most of the American press chose to write about public support for fox-hunting in England.

Hmmm...point taken, 82nd. And acted upon. I wouldn't want to offend the good guys up there the way the a**holes up there offend the good guys down here!

So the USA and its allies don't get rid of saddam by using force. Two years later Iraqi backed terrorist detonate a dirty nuke in Ontario.


Canadians then complain that we didn't do enough right? Yeah I would say their fucking idiots!

Is she referring to the experience she'll recieve when she's gets bombed by us?  A powerful experience indeed.