an interesting view of Iraq

[fobearbc]

so true...

[Cbass]

For those that have been to Iraq, and claim that there were clearly no atrocities, because they did not witness any firsthand, I could claim that Columbus never landed in the Americas, because I wasn't there to see it, by the same token.

The US has used napalm in urban warfare in Iraq, that's an atrocity right there.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/t...name_page.html

The US committed atrocities in Korea, such as No Gun Ri, in Vietnam such as My Lai, the systematic starvation of POW's in Europe, the firebombing of purely civilian targets, etc... There hasn't been a war fought that didn't involve atrocities in one way or another, and to think that the US is somehow above that is naive and foolish.

Originally Posted by Fleet 472

You can when the country breaks a cease-fire agreement (many times) and 17 U.N. resolutions.

Oooh, let's invade Israel! They've broken quite a few cease fires, and violated countless resolutions... Then there's all those resolutions that were vetoed by the US...

Originally Posted by fobearbc

Oh and I for got to mention... I was there for Operaton Northern Watch and Southern Watch... when we enforced the no-fly-zone. Our aircraft were fired apon every day. So much for the cease fire.

Flying over a sovereign nation without first obtaining permission to enter their airspace is an act of war. They had every right to shoot at you.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by Cbass

For those that have been to Iraq, and claim that there were clearly no atrocities, because they did not witness any firsthand, I could claim that Columbus never landed in the Americas, because I wasn't there to see it, by the same token.

Guess you haven't read the history books Columbus never landed in America.

Originally Posted by Cbass

The US has used napalm in urban warfare in Iraq, that's an atrocity right there.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/t...name_page.html

Yup they did! But the question you never answered is when did the US use Naplam? Try during the advance on Baghdad in the begining. Where you implying the US used it on civilians? But if you don't like Naplam we could always strap some bombs on women and children along with the injured if that would make you feel better.

Originally Posted by Cbass

Oooh, let's invade Israel! They've broken quite a few cease fires, and violated countless resolutions... Then there's all those resolutions that were vetoed by the US...

When Isreal loses the next war and surrenders then decides to shoot at planes.and everything else Saddam did then you and the rest of Canada can invade Isreal but until that day you can't comapre Isreal to Itaq.

Originally Posted by Cbass

Flying over a sovereign nation without first obtaining permission to enter their airspace is an act of war. They had every right to shoot at you.

This is the same nation that surrendered to the US in the first Gulf war. Signed an agreement to allow the UN to perform weapons inspections and abide by all UN resolutions. Saddam invading Kuwait is an act of war. The US enforcing the no fly zone can't be compared to the same thing.

[T4 Primera]

I think that this is another case of people insisting that a UN resolution says something they want it to say - not what it actually says.

The United States and Britain argued that the patrols were authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, adopted April 5, 1991. The text "condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq", but does not specifically mention no-fly zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

The two no-fly zones, one in the north and another in the south of Iraq, were unilaterally created by the US, Britain and France soon after the 1991 Gulf War.

France pulled out after refusing to patrol the southern zone when it was expanded northwards by the US and Britain.

Baghdad has questioned the international legitimacy of the no-fly zones claiming that there are no UN Security Council resolutions mandating their enforcement.

Immediately after the southern expansion, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said he would no longer recognise the no-fly zones and urged his troops to shoot down US planes.

Washington has long argued that Resolution 688, which stipulates that Iraq cannot hurt its own people, provides the legal basis for the zones.

However US officials are aware that this position is not universally acknowledged. Russia, for instance, has stated that the zones have not been backed by specific UN resolutions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/cr...wer/244364.stm

I know that many of you put no stock in the UN and consider a waste of space. Yet when convenient, you try to use it (INCORRECTLY) to legitimise illegal actions - then hurl more abuse back at the UN when you find that they do not, in fact, agree with you.

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Guess you haven't read the history books Columbus never landed in America.

I never said he landed in America, I said he "landed in the America's".

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Yup they did! But the question you never answered is when did the US use Naplam? Try during the advance on Baghdad in the begining. Where you implying the US used it on civilians? But if you don't like Naplam we could always strap some bombs on women and children along with the injured if that would make you feel better.

During the initial advance, yes, then too, although the army denied it emphatically, and later came up with the bullshit excuse that it was a new formulation of gelled inciendiary, and that somehow it couldn't be considered napalm in any sense of the word.

They used it in Fallujah as well, unless you're going to claim it was the insurgents who did that, leaving characteristic napalm burned corpses.

Back to the bombs on women and children rhetoric. Don't you guys ever get tired of this? It seems as if every time someone questions the ethics of the army, the cry of "bombs strapped to women and children" is heard. Point out a specific instance of bombs strapped to women or children in Iraq to me, please.

While I'm on this subject, let's talk about suicide bombers motivation. I'm pretty sick of hearing the bullshit excuse of "killing innocent people because they believe it will guarantee them a place in heaven, and however many virgins". That has got to the be the saddest bit of propaganda I have heard to date, other than the excuse for killing children because "they were used as human shields by gunmen". To start with, no Muslim would believe that he would be rewarded for killing innocent people. This is another one of those stories dreamed up in the US to justify it's actions.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

When Isreal loses the next war and surrenders then decides to shoot at planes.and everything else Saddam did then you and the rest of Canada can invade Isreal but until that day you can't comapre Isreal to Itaq.

You're right, I can't really compare Israel to Iraq... After all, Iraq has only ever invaded two of it's neighbours, and they did declare war both times before doing it.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

This is the same nation that surrendered to the US in the first Gulf war. Signed an agreement to allow the UN to perform weapons inspections and abide by all UN resolutions. Saddam invading Kuwait is an act of war. The US enforcing the no fly zone can't be compared to the same thing.

Well, they surrendered to a coalition of nations, not just the US. They did admit UN weapons inspectors, and only refused them access when it became undeniable that the UNSCOM team was heavily comprimised by intelligence operatives whose goal was to spy on Iraq.

Iraq declared war on Kuwait, and invaded. When the US and Britain flew patrols over Iraqs airspace without obtaining permission from Iraq, that constituted invading Iraq. What do you think it means when you move your military into the territory of a sovereign nation without permission? It's an invasion. It's no different than if the US had sent the army into those areas.

[YogsVR4]

The thread is starting to drip with anti-semitism.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

The thread is starting to drip with anti-semitism.

Anti-semitism is not the same as anti-Isreali govt. Just like anti-Americanism is not the same as anti-US foreign policy.

[lazysmurff]

here we go again...

[T4 Primera]

...indeed...