NationStates Jolt Archive

Well looks as if some peace activist are caught in Iraq by a unknown terror group. My question is this. If your the commander on the ground do you make this a high priority to get them back? Most likely these are the same people that protested the war, the military and coalition governments. I have an opinion but would like to hear from the rest.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A03B9C4E-0EA6-453D-BA98-52ACB6CFACF8.htm

Yes, you have to put some resources on it.

As an aside, I find the kidnapping of peace activists to fall into the same realm as those who get killed in Kenya each year, getting out of the Land Rover to get a closer picture of lions or Cape Buffalo.

The terrible death of Margaret Hassan should have told every charity and every peace organization that the insurgents are just as happy to kill people who try to help them.

If I'm the commander on the ground, I promptly bust a gut laughing, then think about baseball or algebra or something for a few seconds until I can keep a straight face long enough to tell some reporter that I'll do "everything possible" to ensure the safety of the hostages. Then I'd walk briskly to my quarters and take a nap. Maybe have a few drinks and play some backgammon when I woke up.. yep.

I'd both say I would and actually do everything I could. What kind of attitude would it be that you abandon your own people because they happen to disagree with what you do?

Either you save them or you confirm the truth of their claims.

If I'm the commander on the ground, I promptly bust a gut laughing, then think about baseball or algebra or something for a few seconds until I can keep a straight face long enough to tell some reporter that I'll do "everything possible" to ensure the safety of the hostages. Then I'd walk briskly to my quarters and take a nap. Maybe have a few drinks and play some backgammon when I woke up.. yep.

Well, you have to wonder about the stupidity of being a peace activist where insurgents are hanging out.

Peace activists don't seem to understand that all insurgents want to do is to kill people that are not like them. Often, since they can't kill enough US soldiers often enough (especially when compared to insurgents during the Vietnam War), they just set off bombs that kill their own people - just to say they did something.

People who kidnap a woman (Hassan) who dedicated her life to peacefully helping Iraqis, and then torture and frighten her for several days before killing her - those people aren't going to play nice even if you are a peace activist.

I honestly kept hoping that they would off Sean Penn, but it was his lucky day.

These are people who bombed a wedding. These are people who send people with Down's Syndrome out with explosives strapped to their body with a remote detonator. People who slit throats on TV.

Probably more dangerous than a lion. Would you get out of your car and pet the lion?

Probably more dangerous than a lion. Would you get out of your car and pet the lion?

These are the people that would. It's the reefer.

They're civilians. They've been abducted by the enemy. What else matters?

They're civilians. They've been abducted by the enemy. What else matters?

It's not that simple.. it's like paramedics performing triage.. you have to prioritize. No one "deserves" to die, but you conserve your energy for the more pressing task.. soldiers would be toward the top of the list.. hippies nearer the bottom.

These are the people that would. It's the reefer.
No amount of weed would make me pet a lion.

You people need to stop getting your drug education from Reefer Madness...

They're civilians. They've been abducted by the enemy. What else matters?
Public opinion matters.

Yes, you get them back. Then these peace activists will have to admit the brutal, savage nature of the enemy and the heroism of the soldiers who rescued them.

No amount of weed would make me pet a lion.

You people need to stop getting your drug education from Reefer Madness...

People are killed by lions in Kenya every year because they get out of the car.

People armed only with a camera. With no armed guide. Within arm's reach of animals that used to kill professional hunters who had guns.

Must be the same gene that makes peace activists hang out where the insurgents play. Within arm's reach of animals that kill professional hunters who have guns.

They're civilians. They've been abducted by the enemy. What else matters?
Correct. You've got to at least try, regardless of what you think of their beliefs.

I'd both say I would and actually do everything I could. What kind of attitude would it be that you abandon your own people because they happen to disagree with what you do?

Either you save them or you confirm the truth of their claims.

Close to my opinion. It would be mercenary, although pragmatic, to suggest "You'd get some kudos for rescuing them", so don't let that be the main factor.

Instead consider that it would certainly be counter to everything you are supposed to represent (the "make things better for everyone" one) to ignore the situation or make only a half-hearted attempt.

They're civilians. They've been abducted by the enemy. What else matters?
Protecting your own forces. Protecting the rebuilding security forces of the country rising from the ashes of the country your government set you to destroy. Protecting the infrastructure that serves the people indigenious to the region. Protecting the people indigenious to the region. Protecting people who refused to take resonable precautions in their own defense is last on the list. You can't save people who don't want to be saved. Trying is a waste, potentially of lives.

Public opinion matters.

Yes, you get them back. Then these peace activists will have to admit the brutal, savage nature of the enemy and the heroism of the soldiers who rescued them.
The war isn't run from NBC studios. Soldiers do what they're ordered to do, not what looks best. Commanders don't order their troops to do what looks best, they order them to do the job. Doing the job includes recovering abducted people. How it looks to the media doesn't matter one iota.

Close to my opinion. It would be mercenary, although pragmatic, to suggest "You'd get some kudos for rescuing them", so don't let that be the main factor.

Instead consider that it would certainly be counter to everything you are supposed to represent (the "make things better for everyone" one) to ignore the situation or make only a half-hearted attempt.

1. Announce you're going to look for them.
2. Look for them.
3. If you find where they are, stage a big raid and kill all the insurgents.
4. Of course, use all weapons at your disposal to make sure you get all the insurgents and lose as few soldiers as possible. This might mean calling in an AC-130 and levelling the building before rushing the rubble.

Protecting your own forces. Protecting the rebuilding security forces of the country rising from the ashes of the country your government set you to destroy. Protecting the infrastructure that serves the people indigenious to the region. Protecting the people indigenious to the region. Protecting people who refused to take reasonable precautions in their own defense is last on the list. You can't save people who don't want to be saved. Trying is a waste, potentially of lives.
Rescued abductees can be a good source of intelligence. Also, tracking down their captors discourages further kidnappings. Terrorists aren't stupid -- if they know they can't get away with something, they won't do it.

The war isn't run from NBC studios. Soldiers do what they're ordered to do, not what looks best. Commanders don't order their troops to do what looks best, they order them to do the job. Doing the job includes recovering abducted people. How it looks to the media doesn't matter one iota.
Maybe if how it looks to the media were taken into account a little more there would be more support for US war efforts. It's not like the Vietnamese forced the US to leave. Public opinion at home did.

Simple answer - I don't know if anyone has already said it but -
Find out where they are after taking a nap as someone said which I applaud greatly. Then just send a man over there, ask the terrorists if they had any decent drugs, whichever the outcome, go back then shoot a missile or two over and kill them all, claiming it to be a suicide bomber. All a great tradgedy of course.
Nightsrose

~I can't quite believe this thread. I suppose you guys think that a peace activist travels to Iraq for a bit of a laugh, to cause mischief for the armed forces, or to grab attention? If you think that a government which spends $4 billion a month on a geopolitical wargame shouldn't divert a tiny amount of that resource to saving citizens, kidnapped while on a selfless humanitarian mission, then you should probably go work for the current White House staff, or perhaps stuff envelopes for them. The opinions expressed on this thread so far display antihumanitarian, antichristian (four of the guys were there working for the Christian Peace Organisation) sentiments indicative of spoilt uninformed bovine westerners. Study the subject, then try forming an opinion.

~I can't quite believe this thread. I suppose you guys think that a peace activist travels to Iraq for a bit of a laugh, to cause mischief for the armed forces, or to grab attention? If you think that a government which spends $4 billion a month on a geopolitical wargame shouldn't divert a tiny amount of that resource to saving citizens, kidnapped while on a selfless humanitarian mission, then you should probably go work for the current White House staff, or perhaps stuff envelopes for them. The opinions expressed on this thread so far display antihumanitarian, antichristian (four of the guys were there working for the Christian Peace Organisation) sentiments indicative of spoilt uninformed bovine westerners. Study the subject, then try forming an opinion.

I've already been to Iraq. I'm smart enough to know that you don't go there unless you're part of the military, and have a weapon, body armor, and plenty of ammunition.

Rather like meeting lions in the wild. If you get out of the car with just your skin, and no weapon, the lions will eat you.

kidnapped while on a selfless humanitarian mission.

There's selfless and then there's suicidal. They should've taken their selfless selves someplace safer.

(Mmm.. that's good alliteration.. :) Unintentional, too.. that's the best kind.)

Fair point. Only more reason to admire the people who choose to enter the fray without army backing & weapons. Not like they didn't know what they were getting in to, just that they had big nuts.

Maybe if how it looks to the media were taken into account a little more there would be more support for US war efforts. It's not like the Vietnamese forced the US to leave. Public opinion at home did.
Not worth the effort. It failed miserably in Viet Nam, and it would fail miserably in Iraq. People who hate the troops would hate them no matter what, and people who love them would love them no matter what. No opinions would be changed. The best thing the military can do is win the war. Let's just pray that the job gets done without horrendous loss of life.

I don't see how you couldn't devote as much attention as possible to their rescue. Besides the media goldmine a rescue like that would be, wouldn't not trying to rescue them make us as bad as the "bad guys"?

While I know that two of them are Canadians and I certainly hope all 4 get out alive, I don't hold out much hope. And, Canada has been very clear about no Canadians should be travelling to Iraq. So, while I feel for them and their families, they knew what chances they were taking when they took it by going to Iraq.

Sad, but honest.

I don't see how you couldn't devote as much attention as possible to their rescue. Besides the media goldmine a rescue like that would be, wouldn't not trying to rescue them make us as bad as the "bad guys"?

Previous ones haven't been. The first rescue went well in the press, with the military contractor escaping safely, but subsequent ones were given no airtime..

Previous ones haven't been. The first rescue went well in the press, with the military contractor escaping safely, but subsequent ones were given no airtime..

Even still, wouldn't it be their duty to try to save those people, no matter how stupid or deserved their predicament is?

Even still, wouldn't it be their duty to try to save those people, no matter how stupid or deserved their predicament is?

If they get Intel that tells them where these people are being held, I'm sure a rescue attempt will be made. Other than that, I don't know what else to say.

Even still, wouldn't it be their duty to try to save those people, no matter how stupid or deserved their predicament is?

I guess I'll just refer to what I was sayin' on Page 1 on priorities..

I find it extremely hypocritical that the same people who are saying we are in Iraq to "help" the citizens there with bombs and guns, are also calling people there in the name of peace idiots for going at all. Peace keepers are selfless and yeah, they are well aware of the dangers of going into a place like Iraq. But calling them idiots for going there to help decent people is probably one of the worst things I've come across in this forum. There's no loss of bravery on the part of soldier who goes to Iraq to fight for what he or she believes is right, but you can go to hell if you think a person going there in the name of peace is anything less.

I find it extremely hypocritical that the same people who are saying we are in Iraq to "help" the citizens there with bombs and guns, are also calling people there in the name of peace idiots for going at all. Peace keepers are selfless and yeah, they are well aware of the dangers of going into a place like Iraq. But calling them idiots for going there to help decent people is probably one of the worst things I've come across in this forum. There's no loss of bravery on the part of soldier who goes to Iraq to fight for what he or she believes is right, but you can go to hell if you think a person going there in the name of peace is anything less.

Peacekeepers are soldiers who eschew RFP (radical force protection) and take additional risk. These people who got themselves taken hostage were never peacekeepers. They are a burden now.. that's about it.

Peacekeepers are soldiers who eschew RFP (radical force protection) and take additional risk. These people who got themselves taken hostage were never peacekeepers. They are a burden now.. that's about it.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0211-03.htm

Sure we should try to punish their kidnappers, but we still havent got word about John Adam, the soldier, who was taken hostage earlier this year.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/02/soldier_narrowweb__200x281.jpg
[link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894934/)]

Desperate Measures - I hear where you're coming from, but peace must first be there before you can try to "keep" the peace. No such thing is in Iraq. It's a fucking war zone. Probably one the most dangerous places one the planet at the moment. Lets get real, Iraq is lost. The war has been lost. Civil war is imminent in Iraq. Not until the victors of that can anything like peace even start being talked about, let alone practiced in that country. Hell there may never be peace there now. It's been one massive FUBAR!

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0211-03.htm

Gonna have to pass on the book report for now.. ;)

I guess I'll just refer to what I was sayin' on Page 1 on priorities..

If I'm the commander on the ground, I promptly bust a gut laughing, then think about baseball or algebra or something for a few seconds until I can keep a straight face long enough to tell some reporter that I'll do "everything possible" to ensure the safety of the hostages. Then I'd walk briskly to my quarters and take a nap. Maybe have a few drinks and play some backgammon when I woke up.. yep.

Priorities like backgammon and booze?

I would think that as long as it's not putting his soldiers in unnecessary risk, a commander should do everything in his or her power to rescue civilians held hostage. I would think that it's part of their job, like I said, regardless of how stupid or deserved the civilians' predicament.

Priorities like backgammon and booze?


Eugh, no.. the other post on Page 1.. the backgammon was in response to the OP asking the more personal question "what would YOU do," rather than the more general "what should be done," which we're on to now.

Gonna have to pass on the book report for now.. ;)
I really expected no less.

Desperate Measures - I hear where you're coming from, but peace must first be there before you can try to "keep" the peace. No such thing is in Iraq. It's a fucking war zone. Probably one the most dangerous places one the planet at the moment. Lets get real, Iraq is lost. The war has been lost. Civil war is imminent in Iraq. Not until the victors of that can anything like peace even start being talked about, let alone practiced in that country. Hell there may never be peace there now. It's been one massive FUBAR!
No kidding. But personal safety was not a priority for those who go there to help.

I really expected no less.

Don't get me wrong.. I skimmed.. just seemed a bit tangential to the issue.

Fair point. Only more reason to admire the people who choose to enter the fray without army backing & weapons. Not like they didn't know what they were getting in to, just that they had big nuts.

Uh why would I admire someone who went into an unstable region with people who just want to kill people that are not like them and try and promote peace? That's almost suicide. It was stupidity that got them in this mess in the first place. People should stop hopeing(sp) for world peace because it's not going to happen. Ever.

No kidding. But personal safety was not a priority for those who go there to help.

Personal safety isn't a priority for drunk drivers, either.. that doesn't make them heroes.. the soldiers that may have to attempt a tricky rescue mission to save these jerks are the ones whose personal safety I worry about.

Personal safety isn't a priority for drunk drivers, either.. that doesn't make them heroes.. the soldiers that may have to attempt a tricky rescue mission to save these jerks are the ones whose personal safety I worry about.
Wow. That's a seriously fucked up statement.

You wouldn't be dissing these poor buggers if they had been Halliburton contract workers, there making a fast buck. Youv'e got a problem with their politics. Leave them to rot because you disagree with them.

People have always crossed the waves to go help in a cause they believe in. Surely you can appreciate that as a pro-war pro-military thinker? The number of activists kidnapped isn't even in double figures. The number of dead coalition soldiers is over 2,500. The whole thing's fucked up, and turning on your own doesn't help much.

Wow. That's a seriously fucked up statement.

Just pointing out how respecting someone simply for the risk they take doesn't really work out. Risky behavior isn't always noble. Suicidal behavior in a warzone is still just suicidal behavior in a warzone.

Well looks as if some peace activist are caught in Iraq by a unknown terror group. My question is this. If your the commander on the ground do you make this a high priority to get them back? Most likely these are the same people that protested the war, the military and coalition governments. I have an opinion but would like to hear from the rest.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A03B9C4E-0EA6-453D-BA98-52ACB6CFACF8.htm

I vote we first get them back then just Carpet bomb the whole damned country with Naplam lots and lots of Naplam.

I vote we first get them back then just Carpet bomb the whole damned country with Naplam lots and lots of Naplam.
With fuel prices the way they are now do you realize how much that would cost?

what do you do If your the commander on the ground?
If I was an CIA commander on the ground...I would enlist a few Latino special Ops...train them...and give them an very-secret them to pose as "unknown insurgents"...and kidnap some peace activist from Countries whom refused to send troops to Iraq...you know...countries Like Germany, France or Spain.

Then I would make a nice x-mas video...and send it to Al-Jazeera...

What would you do...if you where a CIA Commander on the ground?

If I was an CIA commander on the ground...I would send Latino special Ops...and tell them to pose as "unknown insurgents"...and kidnap some peace activist from Countries whom refused to send troops to Iraq...you know...countries Like Germany, France or Spain.

Then I would make a nice x-mas video...and send it to Al-Jazeera...

What would you do...if you where a CIA Commander on the ground?
I'd probably get back up and go grab a few drinks.

I'd probably get back up and go grab a few drinks.
I'm buying.

BTW, the Halliburton contractor that was rescued a while back (truck driver, if I recall), rescued himself. When his captors weren't looking, he just left through a window, ran to a nearby road, and flagged down an Army truck.

Hmmm they are saying that these old hippy dudes are " spys" ...two canadians ...a canadian spy ? ...is there such a thing ? An American and a German ? Seems like they got stuck with bad " goods " so to speak . They went and got all dressed up to jihad and ended up kidnapping a bunch of old peacenicks.... thats gotta suck...what do you say to the head looney tune ?
Sorry boss we screwed up ? Seems like that would make you the next bomb belt wearer...so I guess some old peace dude spys will have to do .
Kinda crazy to think the jihadis would actually respect a peacefull type person ...but you live and learn..or get your head chopped off on TV so others may learn .

It's ironic that when people go to Iraq to kill in order to make things better for Iraqis, they are heroic, when people go to Iraq to do humanitarian services in order to make things better for Iraqis they are stupid.

I dont see any reason to bag on people who have through the courage of their religious convictions, knowingly put themselves at risk for the specific purpose of serving their fellow human beings through hands on humanitarian efforts.

I find it sickening that people are so dead-set on stomping all over and denigrating any possible hint that the war was not a good idea, that they wouldnt feel concern for these people and would in fact denigrate their honourable efforts. I dont recall this kind of attitude towards humanitarian volunteers and workers who knowingly went into other dangerous situations. It seems obvious to me that the criticism isnt about the actions or intelligence of the kidnapped people, it's about denigrating anyone who might have any opposition to the war. That to me is truely sickening, not to mention awfully cowardly. What is so great about the attitude 'I refuse to risk my life for anything I believe in'? Nothing so far as I can see.

Although I realise it's not likely to pan out well for the kidnapped persons, I sincerly hope they come out of this alive and ok. One of the Canadians attends my university and by all reports is a really neat guy.

I certainly dont see that having the courage to do more than believe the tenants of one's religion so much so that one is willing to put their life on the line to stand up and take action that alleviates the suffering of others, is something to be criticised and denigrated for.

It's ironic that when people go to Iraq to kill in order to make things better for Iraqis, they are heroic, when people go to Iraq to do humanitarian services in order to make things better for Iraqis they are stupid.

Only if you disregard the fact that there's a "right way" and a "wrong way" to do things.. taking almost-suicidal risks doesn't make you a hero just for that reason. I don't need to point out that the people who "go there to kill" have done billions worth of humanitarian service, do I? I hope not.

It's ironic that when people go to Iraq to kill in order to make things better for Iraqis, they are heroic, when people go to Iraq to do humanitarian services in order to make things better for Iraqis they are stupid.
I don't think they're being called "stupid" for going to Iraq as humanitarians per se.

Heck, I don't think they're "stupid" at all... they're doing what they believe in, presumably fully conscious of the risks.

The Christian Peacemaker Teams site (http://www.cpt.org) gives brief bios of them. It also includes the statement CPT does not advocate the use of violent force to save lives of its workers should they be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a conflict situation. While CPT may not advocate it, if that's what is necessary to free them, I certainly hope the Iraqi and Coalition forces would use "violent force".

Only if you disregard the fact that there's a "right way" and a "wrong way" to do things.. taking almost-suicidal risks doesn't make you a hero just for that reason. I don't need to point out that the people who "go there to kill" have done billions worth of humanitarian service, do I? I hope not.
I dont see that it is an almost suicidal risk. Certainly it is less so than going into a burning building to rescue someone, but if your elderly mother for instance is ever trapped in a burning building, I sincerly hope someone in the vicinity is able to go in and get her out...I also hope you'd have enough sense to not call such a person an idiot for having done so, even if they do hold political views you dont like.

I dont see that it is an almost suicidal risk. Certainly it is less so than going into a burning building to rescue someone, but if your elderly mother for instance is ever trapped in a burning building, I sincerly hope someone in the vicinity is able to go in and get her out...I also hope you'd have enough sense to not call such a person an idiot for having done so, even if they do hold political views you dont like.

Problem is, their actions affect more than just their own personal safety.. They can commit mass-suicide and I won't judge their reasons.. I wouldn't care. But they're putting the burden on our soldiers to rescue them now, and that entails risk to people who should be completing their missions, not dealing with foolish activists getting themselves taken hostage.. As it stands, even if our soldiers don't attempt a rescue, these people may either end up as propaganda tools for the insurgents, or as financial supporters of the insurgents, depending on whether a ransom is being raised. Not acceptable.

Problem is, their actions affect more than just their own personal safety.. They can commit mass-suicide and I won't judge their reasons.. I wouldn't care. But they're putting the burden on our soldiers to rescue them now, and that entails risk to people who should be completing their missions, not dealing with foolish activists getting themselves taken hostage..
Really, because goodness knows standing around at a checkpoint all day waiting for someone to drive a car bomb through it is so much safer....

Did you bother to work out how many lives people like this save and compare that to how many people actually die trying to rescue such humanitarians....

Unless you are anti on the whole war, your argument is simple hypocrisy. The US is putting the burden on Iraqis and this entails risks, maiming, and death for huge numbers of people. Unless you think the US should have considered the risk they were placing on Iraqis, not to mention the risk to general world security, then it's hypocrisy to suggest that other people should be more careful about who they place at risk when doing what they think is the right thing.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, I dont recall this kind of damnation being levelled at humanitarians kidnapped or killed in other situations, even though this might have placed a risk or burden on would-be rescuers. So far as I can see it's all about politics. It's not what these people did, it's the fact that they might to opposed to a war that their detractors support.

As it stands, even if our soldiers don't attempt a rescue, these people may either end up as propaganda tools for the insurgents, or as financial supporters of the insurgents, depending on whether a ransom is being raised. Not acceptable.
As it stands if the soldiers hadnt gone there in the first place the situation wouldnt exist. If it's ok to start (or support) a war based on a sincere belief that its the right thing to do even if it does put a burden on others and place the lives of people at risk, then it's ok to try to alleviate suffering based on a sincere belief that it's the right thing to do even if it does place a burden on others and put the lives of people at risk. Which of these actions do you think places more lives at risk?

Call me a skeptic but I doubt that any argument that requires I believe that the possible need to attempt to rescue some humanitarians would significantly increase the risks to soldiers on active duty in a war zone, is one that I'm likely to believe. :rolleyes:

Hmmm, maybe the activists would be happier if we tried to negotiate with their kidnappers?

Well, anyways, here's some new info on the archaeologist who was kidnapped a few days ago in Iraq, the first German.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,387580,00.html

Right now it looks like they want Germany to end its relations with Iraq...although there are almost none to speak of. It's not like Germany is a great friend of the current Iraqi Government.

Call me a skeptic but I doubt that any argument that requires I believe that the possible need to attempt to rescue some humanitarians would significantly increase the risks to soldiers on active duty in a war zone, is one that I'm likely to believe. :rolleyes:

They probably won't be rescued.. I wasn't arguing that it was likely. They may be released, after they've paid their ransom, which the insurgents will use to buy weapons and finance their operations. It's no secret that they've been using kidnappings to fund their activites, and people have paid large amounts. That was entirely forseeable, since it's been going on for years, and it's irresponsible to play into this trap if you have any sense or care anything about the soldiers there.

It's just plain naive for these people to say "don't use violence to rescue us if we're kidnapped," and expect us not to do exactly that if we have the option. I don't think we'll have the option, although we've gotten tips in the past and freed people that way, so it's not out of the question.

They probably won't be rescued.. I wasn't arguing that it was likely. They may be released, after they've paid their ransom, which the insurgents will use to buy weapons and finance their operations.
You were arguing that having to rescue them might place soldiers who are currently on active duty in an active war zone at risk...I'm thinking so far as risk goes, that horse has not only bolted, it's found a nice brood mare and bred a large family...

It's no secret that they've been using kidnappings to fund their activites, and people have paid large amounts. That was entirely forseeable, since it's been going on for years, and it's irresponsible to play into this trap if you have any sense or care anything about the soldiers there.
This whole 'they should think about the risk they are putting other people at' line is, for anyone who didnt object to the war in the first place, simple hypocrisy. Either you believe people shouldnt take actions that put others at risk unnecessarily and so believe the war shouldnt have happened, or you believe people should act in accordance with their beliefs even if it risks endangering others, in which case you have no case against these people.

It's just plain naive for these people to say "don't use violence to rescue us if we're kidnapped," and expect us not to do exactly that if we have the option.
Who says anything about these people expecting anyone will actually do as they say? Perhaps they do actually believe that the US military will follow their orders, but I doubt it, and frankly I'd be surprised if you didnt doubt it too.

I don't think we'll have the option, although we've gotten tips in the past and freed people that way, so it's not out of the question.
It's really neither here nor there so far as the point I was making is concerned.

This whole 'they should think about the risk they are putting other people at' line is, for anyone who didnt object to the war in the first place, simple hypocrisy. Either you believe people shouldnt take actions that put others at risk unnecessarily and so believe the war shouldnt have happened, or you believe people should act in accordance with their beliefs even if it risks endangering others, in which case you have no case against these people.


Or, you can believe that extremely risky and life-threatening situations should be left to professionals, rather than activists who get themselves in a perilous (but forseeable) situations that either require them to fuel the insurgency financially, become propaganda tools, or inconvenience professional soldiers, possibly endangering their lives. That's the option I'd go with.. If you don't have the tools to survive in a warzone, leave it to the professionals.. if you want to help afterward, go for it.. but don't walk into their trap and end up ransoming your way out.. don't be a fool.

Yes, you have to put some resources on it.

As an aside, I find the kidnapping of peace activists to fall into the same realm as those who get killed in Kenya each year, getting out of the Land Rover to get a closer picture of lions or Cape Buffalo.

The terrible death of Margaret Hassan should have told every charity and every peace organization that the insurgents are just as happy to kill people who try to help them.

again i agree with you...

the deities that the far left decried as freedom fighters will butcher these innocents and will blame the us for there deaths.

sorry...i aint chopped anyones heads off lately for my god,but since bush is in office,it must be his fault,even though i despise bush.

and since i hate bush....who to blame?

maybe the bloodthirsty animals that actually do this kind of atrocity?

if clinton was in office...i would back him for being mad...but i guess since it is bush,everyone can blame bush for these animals.

where does partison politics end and reality set in?

butchery is only butchery.

politics aside.

it is truly sickening the inhumanity...

making it political is a discrace to the victims

there is absolutely no exscuse to kill anyone for a political objective...right or left...and they all do it.

If I was an CIA commander on the ground...I would enlist a few Latino special Ops...train them...and give them an very-secret them to pose as "unknown insurgents"...and kidnap some peace activist from Countries whom refused to send troops to Iraq...you know...countries Like Germany, France or Spain.

Then I would make a nice x-mas video...and send it to Al-Jazeera...

What would you do...if you where a CIA Commander on the ground?I'd probably get back up and go grab a few drinks.or...you'd get back up and go grab a few more hostages (peace activists)...

Just pointing out how respecting someone simply for the risk they take doesn't really work out. Risky behavior isn't always noble. Suicidal behavior in a warzone is still just suicidal behavior in a warzone.
If you're running around doing nothing, I would say yes. That's stupid.

You miss the point of the greater good these people are doing there. I agree with that other person talking about contract workers. Is that somehow warranted while people there in the name of peace are not?

Risky behavior isn't always noble but sometimes nobility requires risky behavior.

Problem is, their actions affect more than just their own personal safety.. They can commit mass-suicide and I won't judge their reasons.. I wouldn't care. But they're putting the burden on our soldiers to rescue them now, and that entails risk to people who should be completing their missions, not dealing with foolish activists getting themselves taken hostage.. As it stands, even if our soldiers don't attempt a rescue, these people may either end up as propaganda tools for the insurgents, or as financial supporters of the insurgents, depending on whether a ransom is being raised. Not acceptable.
Luckily, your acceptance is not being sought.

Luckily, your acceptance is not being sought.

Most people who are kidnapped are never found. Some are beheaded, but the majority are not found.

Yes, the military would look for them, but primarily to find insurgents to kill. Rescuing hostages gets you some bonus points for PR, but that's it.

And those people WERE idiots for going there, and they WERE accused by their captors of being CIA agents.

Looks like the insurgents can't tell the difference between some high-minded peace activists and the CIA.

Most people who are kidnapped are never found. Some are beheaded, but the majority are not found.

Yes, the military would look for them, but primarily to find insurgents to kill. Rescuing hostages gets you some bonus points for PR, but that's it.

And those people WERE idiots for going there, and they WERE accused by their captors of being CIA agents.

Looks like the insurgents can't tell the difference between some high-minded peace activists and the CIA.
I forgot that Iraqis are now Insurgents.

You hear only about peace keepers when they are being kidnapped in Iraq.

"Since September 2002, seasoned nonviolent activists have been on the ground in Iraq working in tandem with those in the United States and the world who seek to prevent a U.S. attack on Iraq. Initiated by Voices in the Wilderness, Iraq Peace Team will remain in Iraq in the event of an attack with these intentions:

We will live among the Iraqi people during any aggression directed at them, including continued economic sanctions.

We will use our presence and non-violent actions to witness, understand and expose the situation of both the civilian population of Iraq and highlight the importance of facilities such as water purification plants that are critical to daily life.

We will report on our experiences in Iraq through this website, our support teams, and all who will listen.

Iraq Peace Team is not affiliated with Human Shield projects. Though we hope to remain in Iraq in the event of an attack, we don't consider ourselves “human shields." IPT exists to stand in solidarity with the peoples of Iraq. Voices in the Wilderness refuses to incorporate military language or ideas to describe the peace witness of IPT members."
http://vitw.org/ipt/

Or, you can believe that extremely risky and life-threatening situations should be left to professionals,
You seem to forget that the professionals are not necessarily doing anything that these people approve of, and in fact may be doing the opposite of what they'd like done. Either you believe that it is wrong to put others at risk in order to do what you sincerely believe is right, and so you disagree with the war even if it's 'right' because it does put others at risk, or you dont think the that putting others at risk is a good enough reason to refuse to do what you think is right and so you have no case against these people, or you will have ideas about the war that cause you to engage in whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to enable you to damn anyone that might possibly hold alternative views, no matter how hypocritical or contrary to other opinions you claim to hold, the argument you use to justify your position is.

rather than activists who get themselves in a perilous (but forseeable) situations that either require them to fuel the insurgency financially, become propaganda tools, or inconvenience professional soldiers, possibly endangering their lives.
Not all humanitarian aid workers get kidnapped, the large majority dont. Do you also feel this way about foreigners in Iraq to work on construction efforts, they are not for the most part trained professionals in regards to warzones? As for endangering the lives of soldiers, I dont know how many ways there are for me to say this, but it is a waste of time trying to convince me that these soliders who are on active duty in a very violatile war zone with multiple bombings on a daily basis, are going to be placed at significantly greater risk due to the presence of or kidnapping of or even rescue attempts of these people.

That's the option I'd go with.. If you don't have the tools to survive in a warzone, leave it to the professionals..
So you also feel this way about Halliburton employees?

if you want to help afterward, go for it.. but don't walk into their trap and end up ransoming your way out.. don't be a fool.
So far as I know these people didnt walk into a trap. I dont know of any offer on their part or their organisations part, to pay ransoms.

Your arguments appear to be incoherent, they based on notions such as;
some significant danger to soldiers resulting; given the danger they are already in, I see this as a fallacious argument that completely ignores the reality of the situation
'only professionals should be there which ignores the well-being of Iraqis and implies that reconstruction should be abandoned and the country left to descend even further into hell's lower level basements
and that the chances of being kidnapped (as a foreign aid worker in Iraq) are virtually certain rather than fairly unlikely
and that politicians need not worry about the risk or harm their actions cause others, but all others should (with the possible exception of contract workers....)

So far as I can tell your arguments are contary to your own assertions (soldiers probably wont try to rescue and if they do it's for the purpose of catching the insurgents - ie to further the task they are there to do, a rescue attempt would endanger the soldiers even though it would be a normal military operation that is carried out for the purposes of the soldier's normal tasks, the incapacitation of the enemy...)