Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
All I'm
> asking is, would they do this if the US/UK weren't
> launching an attack, and,
> say, the Kurds or the Shias were? If not, why not?
>
> DP
>
Hello? Because it wouldn't work? It would be pointless to send "human shields" because there is no symbolic value in there. You might as well ask if the "human shields" would rather take up arms and form a brigade against the Kurds and Shias to protect Saddam? Stupid? You bet!
Why do 'human shields' want to be 'human shields'? Because it would be bad PR if Britian or the US dropped a bomb on a large group of their own people?
The analogy fails my friend! --- Sent from UnionMail Service [http://mail.union.org.za]