Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Iraqi children sentenced to death!

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Diesel:
    <STRONG> As for all the poor pitiful starving children...take that to the glorious leader of Iraq and make him deal with it...in any case we, US, are planning Lake Bagdad as a future destination resort site with water skiing on a glass bottomed lake that glows in the dark. </STRONG>

    What you just wrote is every bit as disgusting as the terror attacks on the WTC.
    <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    The killing of innocent is wrong whether it be in the US or the Middle East or anywhere in the world
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't listen to him. For some reason he thinks using nuclear weapons is a fucking joke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    islamics thought WTO was a joke...we, US, have used nukes before to good effect...appears likely we will put an end to this herasy of the moon godess in the near future.

    I don't wish ill upon any child...the problems of Iraqui children have been brought upon them by their own rulers and parents who support them.

    Ultimately, we are the big dog in the box and will do as we will...sadam wants to play, he's in the box...O'h well!

    Futhermore, what's wrong with Lake Bagdad with its glass bottom that glows in the dark? It'll be self cleansing as water will be constantly moving over it to clense out any residual radiation.

    Neutron weapons will be used to preserve historical archaeological sites so what's the loss to mankind?

    <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Diesel,

    I hope that you are kidding, 'cause the US isn't using nuclear weapons again unless our backs are against the wall. This situation doesn't even come close to qualifying.

    We are the biggest player on the planet. Using a nuclear weapon on Iraq would be like using a sledgehammer to pound a tack into the wall...pointless.

    What would be the problem? Millions of people, their only crime being born Iraqi and being forced to live under a despot, dead. That would be the problem. Not to mention the radiation that would cause cancer rates to go through the roof for everyone in the region. Hell, seeing as the radiation cloud would go around the world it wouldn't be great for us either.

    I know you're trying to make a point but this is ridiculous.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Alessandro, the last time we, US, used nukes our backs were not to the wall...indeed, it was just more convenient to nuke Japan and end the war than to waste more Americans on an invasion.

    As for Iraq...well, we will probably use clean nukes and/or neutron bombs!

    The world is a very crowded place and 'they' are the ones that raised this shitstorm!

    Kidding...hardly!
    <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="cool.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Alessandro:
    <STRONG>Don't listen to him. For some reason he thinks using nuclear weapons is a fucking joke.</STRONG>

    We ain't laughin'...

    Ever hear of "purification by fire"?

    We will cauterize the puss ridden chancre of a pisshole country.

    btw ~ what I said in my previous post in this thread was that I hold the chickenshit Colin Powell in the same disgust as I hold the chickenshit cowardly politicians that betrayed the sacrifices made by my brothers in Vn, the politicians who gave away what we fought, bled and died for. Those traitors are the REAL losers of that era, not the veterans who fought with their arms tied behind their backs, and still overcame incredible odds to attain the mission objective. There were no "never fired and only dropped once" M-14's or M-16's taken as souvenirs there. Nothing like the "surrender monkey" Republican Guard who make even the French look courageous...
    Iraq has called out the hounds of hell, and now must deal with what IS COMING! They called the music, now time to pay for the song.

    And for those of you who believe that US is the bastion of depravity and degenerate behavior ~ look around you, right there in UK. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Abumondir:
    <STRONG>

    What you just wrote is every bit as disgusting as the terror attacks on the WTC.
    <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    No bullshit cowardly terrorist attacks from this direction. No unsigned hate mail.

    Gonna pin it to your forehead...

    No threats, just one ever so direct promise.

    It is coming...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Alessandro:
    <STRONG>


    The political leaders were worried about how effectively a democratic government would be able to handle the rebellion that was sure to occur by the Kurds in the north if Hussein was deposed.</STRONG>

    This is a crock of SH*T! I was given boxes of booklets that had instructions on how to make explosives from materials that was readily available (urine, car battery acid, et al). Besides bringing back vehicles that were killed or disabled, I was to and did gave these booklets out to the tribal Arabs in the southern region so they can make weapons subversively. If the US Government was worried about how the Iraqi Government would handle a rebellion, they wouldn’t have ordered me to pass these booklets out!

    Saddam has no interest in helping his people out of their misery. He petition the United Nations permission to drain the marshes in the south for "agricultural purposes". What he really did after the marshes were drained was completely wiped out an entire tribe of Marsh Arabs! He hit them with artillery, with tanks, and with gas. He killed old men, women, and children. Babies were not spared! You want to post about the US’s sanctions killing the Iraqi people, you best also post about the people Saddam murdered in cold blood! These sanctions were passed and enforced because Saddam refuses to comply with the terms of the cease-fire that was signed in 1991. Anyone who wants to point fingers towards anyone about people dying because of these sanctions better point their fingers at the leadership of Iraq for not abiding to the agreements that were signed at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.

    My only regret is the US did not give the support that the tribal Iraqis asked for. I personally feel the US dropped the ball on this one. This, I place on General Powell’s shoulders.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN:
    <STRONG>

    No bullshit cowardly terrorist attacks from this direction. No unsigned hate mail.

    </STRONG>

    The US was the first country to use weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. THe atomic bombing of Hiroshima killed 150,000 civilians. Was this a terrorist activity? Definately.

    Furthermore, the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance to the war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

    To win a war through the destruction of women and children revolts my soul.
    <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Originally posted by 63DH8:
    <STRONG>
    ... the US did not give the support that the tribal Iraqis asked for. I personally feel the US dropped the ball on this one... </STRONG>

    Well said. After the end of the war, thousands of returning soldiers, members of the political opposition, Kurdish tribespeople and many other Iraqis revoulted to overthrow Saddam. They were seriously endangering Hussein’s regime, until the U.S. forces under General Schwarzkopf allowed him to use his helicopter gunships to mow people down, occupied military depots so that the rebels could not arm themselves, and allowed the Republican Guards through their lines to put down the rebellion. This betrayal shows clearly that the U.S. would rather have had Saddam Hussein in power than any government created by a popular uprising, which might be too democratic for U.S. tastes. Talk about terrorist activity.

    Thor, so sadistically proud of your M-14 & M-16 souvineirs? Near the end of the Gulf War, after Saddam had given the order for his troops to withdraw from Kuwait, thousands of fleeing civilians and soldiers were brutally bombed and gunned and incinerated on the so-called Highway of Death. Taxis, buses, and other obviously civilian vehicles were targeted, as were military vehicles flying white flags. More thousands were buried alive in their bunkers, without being able to resist in any way.

    The Geneva Convention outlaws the killing of retreating soldiers (especially when they’ve been ordered to stop fighting) and of soldiers who are incapacitated or unable to fight. Do you not consider this terrorist activity?

    The Geneva Convention also makes it a war crime to target food, water, or anything which is a basic necessity of life for the civilian population.

    In the Gulf War, the U.S. deliberately targeted civilian electric power plants, civilian communications, seed and fertilizer factories, factories producing vaccines, oil wells and pumps, bus depots, bridges, and a host of other non-military targets.

    Senior U.S. government officials admitted during the course of the war that many targets were selected, not with a view to their military significance, but "to create postwar leverage over Iraq," which presumably means the threat of massive civilian death if Iraq didn’t obey the U.S. That destruction, exacerbated by eleven years of sanctions, has led, by various UN estimates, to the death of over 1 million Iraqi civilians. This is definately terrorist activity.

    Does the US feel remorse for its numerous war crimes? or is it as has been said, the bastion of depravity and degenerate behavior, the defender of the perverse. <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unfortunately Abu, during a war bridges, depots, factories, oil wells/pumps and communications are all viable targets because they aid military troops as well.

    I do however think that a "baptism of fire" in the Middle East is a bit sick. Where the hell will killing 20 million innocent civilians get you exactly? Or is a nuke the answer for everything you can't beat with tanks and planes?
    Nukes, are barbaric. If you had ever seen footage of the after effects of Japan then you would agree. If you had ever seen the BBC film "Threads" you would agree. Nukes are not almighty weapons that kill everyone instantly. Instant deaths in a city of 1 million for example would probably number between 100-200,000 people. The other 800,000 would die slowly and painfully from radiation sickness, shock, blood loss.
    There would be no outside aid, no fire engines, no ambulances, no hospitals, nothing. Each one of those people, would lie there covered in tumours, burns, lost limbs, blinded/and or deaf for hours and days, wishing for the ability to kill themselves.
    You've seen war, you know how awful it can be. Which is why I cannot believe you advocate the murder of innocent civilians in the hundreds of thousand. You really are disgusting to even entertain the idea, and war vets with any sense of decency, morals and ethics would agree, and yes I do know some. But the vets I know aren't all bitter and twisted about their country's politicians losing the war for them. They've seen war and they hated it, they've had to travel through towns of starving civilians who can't eat because the roads have been destroyed.

    I think an ideal solution to the nuke question would be to first nuke a city such as New York. Then you can see and decide for yourselves wether the murder of a few hundred thousand people is justified when you have seen what its effects are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No-one is saying that Saddam is not an evil guy responsible for thousands of deaths. What I would say is that the sanctions are also responsible for deaths that are avoidable, unfortunately we are stuck with Saddam unless something drastic happens.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Abumondir:
    <STRONG>The US was the first country to use weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. THe atomic bombing of Hiroshima killed 150,000 civilians. Was this a terrorist activity? Definately.

    Furthermore, the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance to the war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.</STRONG>

    Oh for fuck's sake. Why bother to learn history when you can write your own version.

    Japan wasn't defeated, the US were still fighting hard, the Japanese still defending to the death. To surrender was shameful to the Japanese warriors. Japan didn't want to discuss peace until the first bomb, and it still took a second before they finally capitulated. Remember they wanted surrender with conditions after the first...

    I'm not even going to talk about the number of lives <STRONG>saved</STRONG> as a result of the bombs because they were soldiers lives and don't carry the emotive force that a childs death does, and because as they were US lives no-one cares...apparently.

    And this wasn't terrorism, this was a War FFS. There IS a difference.

    but this detract from the argument about how Saddam Hussein is fucking his own people...

    <STRONG>
    To win a war through the destruction of women and children revolts my soul. </STRONG>

    name ONE conflict where this HASN'T been the case...

    <STRONG>
    Well said. After the end of the war, thousands of returning soldiers, members of the political opposition, Kurdish tribespeople and many other Iraqis revoulted to overthrow Saddam. They were seriously endangering Hussein’s regime, until the U.S. forces under General Schwarzkopf allowed him to use his helicopter gunships to mow people down, occupied military depots so that the rebels could not arm themselves, and allowed the Republican Guards through their lines to put down the rebellion. This betrayal shows clearly that the U.S. would rather have had Saddam Hussein in power than any government created by a popular uprising, which might be too democratic for U.S. tastes. Talk about terrorist activity. </STRONG>

    Talk about ceasefire terms which allowed the use of helicopters because all bridges were out and the Iraqis argued that they would need to get food to their countrymen. Once it was discovered what they were really using the gunships for the US had no mandate to intervene, and the coalition had no political will.

    Or do you advocate the US acting unilaterally?

    <STRONG>
    after Saddam had given the order for his troops to withdraw from Kuwait, thousands of fleeing civilians and soldiers were brutally bombed and gunned and incinerated on the so-called Highway of Death. Taxis, buses, and other obviously civilian vehicles were targeted, as were military vehicles flying white flags. More thousands were buried alive in their bunkers, without being able to resist in any way.

    The Geneva Convention outlaws the killing of retreating soldiers (especially when they’ve been ordered to stop fighting) and of soldiers who are incapacitated or unable to fight. Do you not consider this terrorist activity? </STRONG>

    No. Becuase the war was still in effect. Iraqi had still to surrender.

    Your stupidity know no bounds. Why the fuck should the US have assumed that these soldiers had been ordered to stop fighting, had the Iraqis ever shown any reason why they should have been trusted.

    in war you kill your enemy, wherever you find him - unless he is under the protection of a white flag. Noone of these vehicles were attempting to surrender. So fuck 'em.

    If you remember, many of the vehicles were also filled with stolen booty from Kuwait...

    <STRONG>
    The Geneva Convention also makes it a war crime to target food, water, or anything which is a basic necessity of life for the civilian population.

    In the Gulf War, the U.S. deliberately targeted civilian electric power plants, civilian communications, seed and fertilizer factories, factories producing vaccines, oil wells and pumps, bus depots, bridges, and a host of other non-military targets. </STRONG>

    In war you cut off your enemy, make it difficult for them to fedd and water their troops.

    War isn't nice and touchy feely, it suck. Its dirty, messy and unfair. The best thing is to get it finished asap, and if that means that your enemy is put in difficult situations and struggles to look after his own people, because he used the same resources to feed and water his tropps as he does his non-combants, then you can blame no-one but the leader of that country.

    Just a note - Vaccines & biological weapons can be made in the same factory...

    not that Saddam would do anything underhand of course, because he is such a nice friendly guy...

    <STRONG>
    the bastion of depravity and degenerate behavior, the defender of the perverse. <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    No, that accolade goes to those whose blind hatred for the US clouds their vision completely. These are the people who can only see wrong on what the US does. That's perverse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Noone of these vehicles were attempting to surrender. So fuck 'em.
    nice <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>nice <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    I know what you mean, but I'm not talking about someone driving down the road for fun. These were soldiers, during a war and they could easily have turned and fired a SAM at the plane which had just passed over them.

    War isn't nice. We all know that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know it just seems rather heartless, they were plainly fleeing, if you took that view further you could use it to justify killing POWs or civillians couldn't you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Abumondir:
    <STRONG>


    Does the US feel remorse for its numerous war crimes? or is it as has been said, the bastion of depravity and degenerate behavior, the defender of the perverse. <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    ...coming to a theatre near you!

    Prepare yourself...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>I know it just seems rather heartless, they were plainly fleeing, if you took that view further you could use it to justify killing POWs or civillians couldn't you?</STRONG>

    Plainly fleeing? How exactly do you know that?

    How about during WW2? The SS divisions that pulled back to defend Berlin at the end of the war...Should we have left them alone because they were 'clearly fleeing'? Can you tell the difference between a strategic withdrawl to a position then intend to defend and a 'clearly fleeing' enemy?

    Nobody knew what was going to happen with those troops..Nobody except Saddam.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK I admit I don't know a lot about the Gulf War but Abu said earlier they had white flags, is he just lying?

    I've also seen pictures of the event and I really don't think that could be mistaken for an organised withdrawal.....

    PS <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> for Balddog being the first to use WW2 reference <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>OK I admit I don't know a lot about the Gulf War but Abu said earlier they had white flags, is he just lying?</STRONG>

    He will believe anything which portrays the US in a bad light, apparently.

    <STRONG>
    I've also seen pictures of the event and I really don't think that could be mistaken for an organised withdrawal.....</STRONG>

    Agreed, but then an organised withdrawal doesn't mean that the army moves in columns. It means that everyone is told to rendezvous at a particular point, for a specific reason...

    and it WAS a rout, no doubt about it, but then if you take on the world's most powerful forces...

    <STRONG>
    PS <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> for Balddog being the first to use WW2 reference <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> should go to Abu, for mentioning Hiroshima earlier...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    should go to Abu, for mentioning Hiroshima earlier...
    whoops, sorry Baldy <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> please except my apologies.....

    I don't think you should jump to conclusions about Abu from his first few posts, are you saying there were definately no white flags?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think if they quit building weapons and financing terrorism they would have plenty of whatever they needed. The sanctions arent causeing their problems. Their focus on destroying everyone who is not them is.

    Anyway they are possibly still holding one of our Pilots and he better get him back INTACT and ALIVE!!

    YOU BETTER FREE SCOTT
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>I don't think you should jump to conclusions about Abu from his first few posts, are you saying there were definately no white flags?</STRONG>

    Ive certainly never seen one in the footage ive seen. But then AFAIK, the only widespread coverage of that highway was post US attacks. The only footage of any white flags would have been taken by the US planes while on their attack runs..Ive never seen that footage and I doubt Abu has either considering it is likely to be rather graphic and confidential for that matter.

    Id be interested in knowing how Abu knows there were white flags flying. The Iraqis havent been making that argument. I dont think Abu is lying, but I dont believe his sources were correct. Not until I see footage or an unbiased source.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Abumondir:
    <STRONG>

    Near the end of the Gulf War, after Saddam had given the order for his troops to withdraw from Kuwait, thousands of fleeing civilians and soldiers were brutally bombed and gunned and incinerated on the so-called Highway of Death. Taxis, buses, and other obviously civilian vehicles were targeted, as were military vehicles flying white flags. More thousands were buried alive in their bunkers, without being able to resist in any way.
    </STRONG>


    I'm calling bullsh*t on this too! Fleeing? Hardly! Retreating? Try a rearward movement to regroup! Several times, the Iraqi army flew the white flag in a retreat only to regroup and fire upon US tanks. This is a violation of the Geneva convention. They got what they deserved.

    Originally posted by Abumondir:
    <STRONG>
    The Geneva Convention outlaws the killing of retreating soldiers (especially when they’ve been ordered to stop fighting) and of soldiers who are incapacitated or unable to fight. Do you not consider this terrorist activity?
    </STRONG>


    No I don't, considering what had happened in the battles previously. To top this off, these soldiers were hardly incapacitated or unable to fight, thus there were no violations to the Geneva Convention.
    Originally posted by Abumondir:
    <STRONG>

    More thousands were buried alive in their bunkers, without being able to resist in any way.
    </STRONG>

    These "thousands" who were buried were told to surrender or be buried. Those who surrendered were not buried. Those who decided to fight had the promise fulfilled. It was their choice. They died by their choice. Your argument holds no water.

    The sanctions would be lifted if Saddam would comply with the UN cease-fire agreement that he signed. All it would take is for him to give that order. The next time you watch a news report out of Iraq, notice the Republican Guard are all well fed and getting fat while the children are starving. Why is that? I noticed ol' Saddam is getting a gut too. He's certainly not starving! Sounds very much like you've fallen for the propaganda of the Iraqi Government. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>I know it just seems rather heartless, they were plainly fleeing, if you took that view further you could use it to justify killing POWs or civillians couldn't you?</STRONG>


    The problem is, prior to this event, the Iraqi’s Republican Guard had flown the white flag, then fire upon the US troops and tanks. They have also used the white flag to do a tactical withdrawl so they can regroup and counter attack. This is a violation of use of the white flag under the Geneva Convention. If they were clearly surrendering, they would not have withdrawn. They would have laid down their arms and surrendered. Also, they would not have had combat vehicles in the convoy. As you may remember seeing in the news, there were tanks and APCs that were also blown up in the traffic.

    I can personally attest to what happened there because I was there. I was in one of the tank groups that was shot at by the Iraqis after they "surrendered". It wasn’t one rouge tank that fired upon us. It was ALL their tanks. Every one of them was flying the white flag at the time. Every one of them died with-in a few seconds of their deceit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Diesel:
    <STRONG>Alessandro, the last time we, US, used nukes our backs were not to the wall...indeed, it was just more convenient to nuke Japan and end the war than to waste more Americans on an invasion.

    As for Iraq...well, we will probably use clean nukes and/or neutron bombs!

    The world is a very crowded place and 'they' are the ones that raised this shitstorm!

    Kidding...hardly!
    <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="cool.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    And you're saying that the attitudes toward nukes are still the same now as they were in 1945? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Yeah, we used the bombs on Japan because we didn't want to lose the estimated 1 million casualties that a Japanese invasion would cost. Are you trying to tell me that an invasion of Iraq after a massive bombing campaign would cost a million casualties?

    No one is going to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. After Eisenhower, no US leader has even threatened to use them. I would put $1000 on the table right now against your claims.

    63DH8:

    Of course you passed out those books. It's a well known fact that the US completely reversed its course of action regarding the Arab tribes. It doesn't change the fact that the decision to do this was made for political reasons.

    One of my International Security professors was involved in the decision making process, writing the intelligence estimates for the government, when this happened. This is the truth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Alessandro:
    <STRONG>
    Of course you passed out those books. It's a well known fact that the US completely reversed its course of action regarding the Arab tribes. It doesn't change the fact that the decision to do this was made for political reasons.
    </STRONG>

    What political reasons are you referring to? The US had determined she couldn’t send her military in to liberate Kuwait unless it was seen by the Arabic community as assisting the Kuwaitis. We felt the Arabs could look upon the US pushing the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait as the US attacking a brother Arab state. The first soldiers across the border were Kuwaitis and Saudis. The US followed across the border. The same thing was considered when it came to motivating the tribal Iraqis to revolt. There was the possibility that any Government that usurp Saddam with US help would be looked upon as a puppet of the US, and would be looked upon as not legitimate.

    Originally posted by Alessandro:
    <STRONG>
    One of my International Security professors was involved in the decision making process, writing the intelligence estimates for the government, when this happened. This is the truth.
    </STRONG>


    Which Government? Where you're from gives you a different perspective. I know this because my mother is Japanese and was in Japan during WWII. My father was Danish and served in the US Navy during WWII. What I saw happen in Iraq and what people are telling me what happened is two different things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by 63DH8:
    <STRONG>
    What I saw happen in Iraq and what people are telling me what happened is two different things.</STRONG>

    Welcome to Revisionist History 101. Reality doesn't support their emotionalism, so they re-write everything so as to distort or conceal the truth.

    SOP... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Abu, a refresher in terror 101 for you; sadam is paying palestinians to kill jews...the jews have nukes...!

    Just how many more subsidized homiside bombers do you think they will tolerate before they decide to take it to the source and nuke Bagdad?

    Now, for the record; I have personally witnessed three surface detonatons of nukes in Nevada, USA. Awsome...the power just can't be imagined.

    So, write home and tell your folks and friends in Iraq to make peace with one another and their diety because they are about to become another moment in history...a short moment to be long remembered.

    As for the families of the bombers...expect to see the jews taking them out before they can enjoy their blood money payments for sending their children to a certain death with explosives wrapped around their necks.

    Abu, we are at war and islam is the enemy...not terribly complicated to US simple folks. Forget all the nicities of Geneva Conventions and such...we are all living and fighting in the most exciting period in the history of the world...islam is doomed!

    Doomed because it fell under the control of its most radical adherents and now the situation can't be fixed with a 'reformation' or a rewrite of the qu'ran!

    Hoep this doesn't sound too unfriendly. I'm just a plain spoken fellow that doesn't lie to himself about what is happening. Too bad we couldn't sit down over a cup of Arabic Coffee and discuss these matters. Unfortunately, that would be viewed by many as consorting with the enemy. <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Diesel, there is a radical problem with the way you think. Generalisation. You have anger within you that you aim at the wrong people. Please have a quiet think about this. If a person hit you, you hit him back, you don't go around looking for his wife or daughter or second cousin.
    Originally posted by Diesel:
    <STRONG>
    Abu, we are at war and islam is the enemy...
    </STRONG>

    Oh yes!!!! Go ahead and nuke 1/3 of the earth's surface and murder 1 billion men, women and children???????

    Why not? More than a million people have alreadly died in Iraq since the start of US imposed sanctions in 1991.
    Originally posted by Diesel:
    <STRONG>
    Hoep this doesn't sound too unfriendly. I'm just a plain spoken fellow that doesn't lie to himself about what is happening. Too bad we couldn't sit down over a cup of Arabic Coffee and discuss these matters. Unfortunately, that would be viewed by many as consorting with the enemy. <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    Don't take things personally, Diesey, it is not Americans we despise, it is the perverse policies of your government.
    <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yo aren't at war with Islam at all, that's just your sick justification for murder.
    You are at war with extremists, and every major world religion has it's share of extremists.
    We've had to live with terrorism longer than you, but we don't wage war on the Roman Catholics or the protestants who make up the bulk of the terrorists, and we certainly don't go as far to condemn the 1 billion catholics around the world to death.
    True Muslims respect Christianity and Judaism because we share so much in common. Our old testaments are identical so I've been led to believe, and the only real difference is the deity we choose to worship, or maybe it is just his name.

    To murder millions of muslims for belonging to a religion would make you no different than Hitler ordering the execution of Jews, who's only crime was to have been born with a different religion. Instead of lake Bagdhad, why don't you save the money spent on nuking them and set up Auschwitz-dubiaki or something? You seem able to bump people off with poison gas already, so equipment won't be a problem.

    And Diesel, there's a huge difference between seeing a TEST explosion of a nuke, and being caught in the blast itself. Death from nuclear explosion isn't instant. The explosion doesn't rip entire cities apart like the movies make out. Sure, a large number will die instantly, a larger number will die slowly and painfully. Imagine your flesh melting, being blinded, suffocating from the heat, your limbs being torn apart from shrapnel, but you are still alive. You lie there for hours, slowly dying from the blast, and from the radiation that follows. And you're telling me this is a fate you want to befall on millions of innocent people because you don't like their religion?
Sign In or Register to comment.