Saddam's Sons May Have Died in Raid

[Guest Downhome]

Qusai headed Iraq's intelligence and security services, his father's personal security force and the Republican Guard, an elite force of 80,000 soldiers responsible for defending Baghdad.

 

Uday was in charge of Iraq's security forces.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

But let's play devil's advocate - if the intention was to kill....

 

.....what's the fucking problem?

Precisely.

 

Our intention should have been to kill them. Our intention should be to kill anyone associated with the Hussein regime. We need all those miserable bastards pushing up daisies before we can try and establish some kind of sensible government for the Iraqi people. Ties to the past need to be cut, especially ties as poisonous as those to Saddam.

Certainly agree, and this is a very good day for all who despised the Hussein regime. This is sure going to make the movie Deterrence age poorly though. . Of course, if such a thing is going to be acceptable (and it should be) the US may as well drop this ban on assassinations. Not only is the CIA liable to simply ignore it, but it's just a facade and everyone knows it won't hold up when push comes to shove (like here).

 

By the way, did anyone look at the pictures of Uday and Quasay? I didn't really have the stomach to look at corpses, and I don't doubt that the military is in fact correct given the x-ray work they have done, unless they are lying about everything which seems completely unlikely.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Qusay was a moron who killed plenty of his own soldiers, let alone all the torture and treachery to the civilians.

 

According to a report the Chronicle did a few months ago with Iraqi soldiers hiding from the US government, Qusay ordered all the Baghdad defenders to march out into the desert and right through the US armored column. They lost half their forces doing that. So he called them back and they lost their other half.

 

HOW STUPID!

[Guest Cancer Marney]

let's discuss the fact that we went into battle parading Iraq as a threat, but they weren't.

(emphasis added)

 

Let's discuss your ignorance of the definition of the word "fact."

 

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

 

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

[Guest cpac]

Well forget looking at pictures. Foxnews is now playing video of the dead bodies with their faces shaved and makeup on to make them look more like they used to look. And Mbeast, those fuckers weren't human, they deserved what they got. Those 2 bastards are burning in hell right now. FUCKING ANIMALS. Howard Stern was talking about a report of how the two brothers would rape women whenever they wanted too. One time they raped a bride to be at the wedding and the groom went to the back room to shoot himself in the head. So go have some more sympathy for them.

[Guest Vyce]

Chrissakes, shut up. I've just about had it with your disgusting combination of treason and wishy-washy weak-kneed faux naivete.

He's been giving me a headache too.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

 

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.

 

Technically, that means that anyone could be a terrorist, since direct evidence stating so isn't required. So, why aren't we invading Israel?

 

The fact (as stated by the 9/11 report) is that there was no Iraq-al Queda connection. The fact (as per testimony of Iraqi sources, AP reporting) is that Iraq had no ressurected nuclear program. The fact is that we've found precisely nothing to suggest that Iraq still had these massive quantities of nerve agent and biological toxins. My conclusion (and the conclusion of many others), therefore, is that Iraq is an increadibly ordinary threat; they were no more dangerous to us than any other country in the Middle East, and we had far greater threats in the world (such as North Korea).

 

Have I cleared up my language sufficiently?

[Guest SideFXs]

Tyler McClelland......

 

Imagine you are an Iraqi citizen, living in your college apartment, with your girl friend. You are posting a message, on an Iraqi internet message board.

 

One of Qusay's 'Special-Security-Organization,' agent, also subscribes to that same internet message board to monitor for Iraqi citizens resistant to the Baathist Party. This special agent finds your remarks inflammatory to Saddam's regime.

 

Now Qusay sends two agents to abduct you. One of the agents takes you to jail, while the other stays in your apartment, with your girl friend. You get to spend the next three months in a dark, damp, feces, rat infested hole, barely fed and never bathed.

 

After three months, Qusay gets around to talking to Dad about you, while drinking Bourbon and smoking Cuban cigars. Saddam wishes to make an example of your insolence. Your feet are hung above your head and beaten with a cane (one of Uday's favorite forms of torture) . Then, electricity to the genitals. Then, you are marched in front of an assembly of Baathist officials and your tongue is cut out and your fingers broken, so you can never talk or write again. Your are silenced forever, but you are allowed to remain alive, in fear.

 

Ok you can wake up now !!!! Your are free, in the United States of America.

 

Try giving America and President Bush the benefit of the doubt. I know it is hard for you, but try an understand that your freedom,, our freedom, IS NOT FREE!!! Free people must take a stand against tyranny and terrorism.....

[Guest SideFXs]

.....There was a celebrated, painted mural of the devastated World Trade Center Towers, in the Office of Special Security, in Baghdad. Saddam, Uday, and Qusay wanted to destroy America. Salmon Pak, south of Baghdad, was a terrorist training camp for Al Qaeda. Notably an airplane fuselage was found. You have to see now, they had a hand in trying to destroy our economy, our sense of well-being, and our freedom.

 

The brothers were not going to give themselves up to the 101st Airborne. They would rather have died first. Iraq and the world are better off, now that 'Saddam's children' (a quote from Charlie Rangel, LMAO) are dead. The blood line is severed.

 

Try not to blindly accept the liberal media, the liberal politician's, and your liberal professor's propagandize attempts to make the Republican administration and President Bush as the war mongering aggressors, out for oil for their buddies, and our military as mad-killers and occupiers unjustly killing Iraqi children. Saddam killed Iraqi women and children in the hundreds-of-thousands. Mass graves have been found in Iraq. He gassed his own people to suppress insurrection of the Kurds. Hundreds of boys have been found jailed by Qusay. Uday would participate in 'blood-lust' exhibitions. Uday would torture Olympic athletes if they did not win. Uday would take just married brides and rape them. Qusay terrorized Iraqi citizens with secret police. They looted the wealth of Iraq and kept it to build palaces and buy 1200 luxury cars and purchase expensive French cologne, while most Iraqis lived in poverty and fear.

 

We have been at war with Saddam, since 1990, when he tried to take control of one of the largest oil fields in the Middle East. I just wanted to remind you of that, since you were only 6 years-old at the time. He started it, we are going to end it. This is WAR.

 

By the way, Uday preferred the hands-on approach and would have likely been the man that stayed with your girl friend, when you were abducted and taken to the torture chambers, in that dream.

[Zorin Industries 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...1005980,00.html

 

Heres an article with a more up to date picture, i have to say this one looks more disturbing than the others.

 

Plus, I know it is standerd practice in morterys to reconstruct faces, but this just makes it look more fake.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Then I guess you're in support of action against Liberia, Congo, Somalia, and every fucking country in Africa.

 

Never once have I denied that Saddam Hussein is a very bad person. Never once have I said we shouldn't have attacked Iraq for humanitarian reasons. However, as I've stated about 5.2 trillion times in the last month, this means that we ABSOLUTELY MUST intervene in the other countries where conditions are HUNDREDS of times worse than Iraq.

 

Save me your retarded, Freeper emotion play.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Have to agree there. If America wants to prove doubters like me wrong they must go into more countries and overthrow dictatorship governments. Until then I will still believe that America's intervention in Iraq has a hidden agenda to it.

[Guest EricMM]

If America wants to prove doubters like me wrong they must go into more countries and overthrow dictatorship governments

 

Wait wait wait. You piss and moan about going into Iraq, what it costs to stay in Iraq, and on and on. You give the US seven kinds of shit for the Iraq war. And then you say we should do MORE of this?

 

What do you want!?

[Guest Powerplay]

If America wants to prove doubters like me wrong they must go into more countries and overthrow dictatorship governments

 

Wait wait wait. You piss and moan about going into Iraq, what it costs to stay in Iraq, and on and on. You give the US seven kinds of shit for the Iraq war. And then you say we should do MORE of this?

 

What do you want!?

To bitch about something, Eric. Most liberals are so ticked that the Liberation of Iraq went off without a hitch that they must nitpick at any little detail they can just so they can say "See, the are doing it all wrong!" without offering any solution. It's the 21st Century Liberal fad, I guess.

 

At any rate:

 

Then I guess you're in support of action against Liberia, Congo, Somalia, and every fucking country in Africa.

 

Liberia because our connections there. We've tried in Somalia, and you and I talked about Congo, Tyler. That's just too fucked up for even our help at the moment. Even you have to agree that there has to be some semblance of stability, good or bad, to transition a country from a dictatorship to a democracy. You can't suddenly breed a governmental system from total anarchy, like the Congo. You have to at least wait until the conditions improve before putting action in.

 

Never once have I denied that Saddam Hussein is a very bad person. Never once have I said we shouldn't have attacked Iraq for humanitarian reasons.

 

I just have to say, for being so supportive of a war against Iraq for whatever reasons, you seem to continually bitch about every little thing going on down there:P. Remember, it's not like the US is just ignoring the Humanitarian situation there. Actually, it seems like they've put top priority on it .At least, though, you haven't claimed it turning into the next Vietnam (Like I've seen some people already start doing).

 

However, as I've stated about 5.2 trillion times in the last month, this means that we ABSOLUTELY MUST intervene in the other countries where conditions are HUNDREDS of times worse than Iraq.

 

Like Liberia? Aren't we already going there? We can only be in so many places at once, man.

 

Secondly, even if the conditions are 100 times worse, the dictators that rule the countries have little power outside their boundaries. Saddam had a sizable army and an incredible amount of funds in his hands. You have to take out the big fish in the pond, then move onto the little ones.

 

Save me your retarded, Freeper emotion play.

 

Wow, calm down there, boyo. Just because he made a valid point doesn't mean you have to call him retarded.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It's people like you, Judge, that ensure I never get any work done. Oh well, I'm on the clock anyway

 

Liberia because our connections there. We've tried in Somalia, and you and I talked about Congo, Tyler. That's just too fucked up for even our help at the moment. Even you have to agree that there has to be some semblance of stability, good or bad, to transition a country from a dictatorship to a democracy. You can't suddenly breed a governmental system from total anarchy, like the Congo. You have to at least wait until the conditions improve before putting action in.

 

Oh, I agree. However, my main qualm with placing this war as a "humanitarian" war was that there are many countries out there that have it FAR worse than Iraq. Therefore, as is the subliminal point I've been making all along, there has to be a hidden agenda here.

 

I totally agree on Congo, and Liberia... eh, we're not really committing much there, it seems.

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Friday said he has ordered U.S. troops to be sent to the coast of war-torn Liberia to support a West African peacekeeping force that is expected to be deployed to the region.

 

Bush did not say how large the U.S. force would be, but U.S. officials told CNN that the president's order is expected to send more than 2,000 Marines to the region.

 

We are, more or less, making this a training squad for the West African peacekeepers, IMO. This is no invasion on our part, it's a full-blooded compromise to shut up liberals like me. I'm not all in favor of what we're doing, but I am happy we're at least doing something.

 

With that being said, I've heard far too many conservatives bitch and moan about this in the past few days.

 

I just have to say, for being so supportive of a war against Iraq for whatever reasons, you seem to continually bitch about every little thing going on down there:P. Remember, it's not like the US is just ignoring the Humanitarian situation there. Actually, it seems like they've put top priority on it .At least, though, you haven't claimed it turning into the next Vietnam (Like I've seen some people already start doing).

 

I bitch about the fact that if it's humanitarianism on our minds, we should be in many more places besides Iraq. I don't think it's a humanitarian war; I don't exactly know what the hell it is. It just doesn't seem like the wisest thing on any side of the fence. With the evidence presented (and the evidence apparently available pre-war), it doesn't seem like they were much of a threat. Certainly, other countries posed more of one. From a humanitarian standpoint, it's not even half as bad as some of the African situations. I'm not sure we can justify going there before we go to other genocidal nations, so I don't think we can truly justify it on a humanitarian basis, either. Perhaps if we dealt with the bigger problems first, I wouldn't have even complained (especially since there would have been valid precedent). However, the reasons for going to war have fluctuated so many times in order to find one that works... that it's incredibly hard to figure out exactly WHAT the administration's motivations are.

 

Like Liberia? Aren't we already going there? We can only be in so many places at once, man.

 

Why not, we could take over the world.

 

Wow, calm down there, boyo. Just because he made a valid point doesn't mean you have to call him retarded.

 

It's hardly valid. It was an irrelevant emotional play that had nothing to do with the debate.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Hmm, if the American troops knew what they were doing, this "war" may have passed quicker and a lot more efficiently. Instead, we are getting unnecessary civilian deaths, torture to innocents and shooting of fellow troops.

[Guest Powerplay]

It's people like you, Judge, that ensure I never get any work done. Oh well, I'm on the clock anyway

But Tyler, how fun would the World be with no one to argue with?

 

Oh, I agree. However, my main qualm with placing this war as a "humanitarian" war was that there are many countries out there that have it FAR worse than Iraq. Therefore, as is the subliminal point I've been making all along, there has to be a hidden agenda here.

 

I totally agree on Congo, and Liberia... eh, we're not really committing much there, it seems.

 

But again, Iraq is a far easier choice since there is some infrastructure and order about (And I know people like MB are going to say "OMGODZ, GUERRILLA WARFARE MAKES IT UNORDERLY LOL2K3", but Iraq is a cakewalk compared to total anarchy ala the Congo), plus an unhinged dictator with money to burn and an intense hatred of the Western World makes it an ideal choice to start, doesn't it?

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Friday said he has ordered U.S. troops to be sent to the coast of war-torn Liberia to support a West African peacekeeping force that is expected to be deployed to the region.

 

Bush did not say how large the U.S. force would be, but U.S. officials told CNN that the president's order is expected to send more than 2,000 Marines to the region.

 

 

We are, more or less, making this a training squad for the West African peacekeepers, IMO. This is no invasion on our part, it's a full-blooded compromise to shut up liberals like me. I'm not all in favor of what we're doing, but I am happy we're at least doing something.

 

With that being said, I've heard far too many conservatives bitch and moan about this in the past few days.

 

2,000 Marines with support is a lot more than you think it is. It's definitely nothing to scoff at. Again, we aren't going to send thousand upon thousand of troops there because inevitably people like MB will start bitching about Imperialism and all that 19th Century crap.

 

I bitch about the fact that if it's humanitarianism on our minds, we should be in many more places besides Iraq. I don't think it's a humanitarian war; I don't exactly know what the hell it is. It just doesn't seem like the wisest thing on any side of the fence. With the evidence presented (and the evidence apparently available pre-war), it doesn't seem like they were much of a threat. Certainly, other countries posed more of one. From a humanitarian standpoint, it's not even half as bad as some of the African situations. I'm not sure we can justify going there before we go to other genocidal nations, so I don't think we can truly justify it on a humanitarian basis, either. Perhaps if we dealt with the bigger problems first, I wouldn't have even complained (especially since there would have been valid precedent). However, the reasons for going to war have fluctuated so many times in order to find one that works... that it's incredibly hard to figure out exactly WHAT the administration's motivations are.

 

First off, it doesn't matter if you think it's a humanitarian war because still, the humanitarian aspect of it is being address very well. I don't think that you can fault the US for what they've done so far in getting the country back in control and trying to set up a government as soon as possible.\

 

In the humanitarian aspect it may not be as bad, but on the international level Iraq is far more of a loose cannon threat than any nation in Africa. The African nations have to care about their own stability. Iraq didn't have to; they could put their efforts into concentrating on doing whatever they could do to the West without getting caught. The fact that Iraq was infinitely more dangerous to other countries (Being that it had a sizable army and that could take on most countries in the area), especially in a region as volatile as the Middle East, is different.

 

Why not, we could take over the world.

 

There's a difference between saving the world and subjugating it. If we just wanted to conquer Iraq, the problems would have ended a LOT sooner (Hell, we probably could have just culled the country if we wanted to, followed by the next one who wanted a piece of us as well). But playing the nice guy is infinitely harder because we have to abide by the rules and they don't. Not to say that we'll lose in Iraq, but if we split our forces all around the World for a peace-keeping mission, the generals couldn't possibly deal with it correctly. It's just a much more delicate process, and we don't want to screw ourselves over by trying to juggle two dozen political chainsaws at once. Two or three is enough, thank you very much.

 

It's hardly valid. It was an irrelevant emotional play that had nothing to do with the debate.

 

[JMA] But Tyler, calling him a retard is just mean! Stop it, or I'm telling mom![/JMA]

 

And to address little MB's comment:

 

Hmm, if the American troops knew what they were doing, this "war" may have passed quicker and a lot more efficiently. Instead, we are getting unnecessary civilian deaths, torture to innocents and shooting of fellow troops.

 

.... You are a fucktard. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to state it outright that you are a fucktard. We did know what we were doing. First off, what the hell do you mean by "Knowing what to do in this 'war'"? Are you a former military commander? Do you have any idea how to run a peace-keeping operation? If not, then what the fuck gives you the right to critique what has been generally looked upon to be a well executed campaign so far? And how quick did you want it? The initial war was a MONTH LONG! Jesus Christ, they can only drive so fast. And to think that you could transition a new government in a matter of months is just idiotic. We are moving as fast as we can, and there's no way to say that this hasn't been handled well enough. Secondly, to expect no casualties in a war is to be a complete and utter fool. Where are the unnecessary civilian deaths? We were remarkably good about protecting the public from harm, despite Saddam trying to put them in front of our missiles. We've tortured innocents? I believe that was the British. Produce the article from a credible and reasonably unbiased source and then we'll see. And even if we've tortured a few people (Which I haven't seen any proof of besides an accusation directed at the British), you can't possibly claim that it's on the scale that Saddam had it on. Shooting our own fellow troops? You really ARE an idiot. In any massive operation there is bound to be at least one communication failure, or equipment malfunction, or something along those lines. You act as if the American commanders are sending the soldiers right into each other's sights. You've just killed any dignity you still had with that you ignorant dolt.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Well executed campaign? That would explain the countless deaths of civilians, journalists and fellow troops then. Don't believe the doctored footage that the one-way US government feeds you. This campaign has succeeded in overthrowing Saddam's government, but to say it has been well done is wrong.

 

Oh, and feel free to call with a nim-wit, idiot or fucktard or whatever your limited vocabulary offers.

[Guest Powerplay]

Well executed campaign? That would explain the countless deaths of civilians, journalists and fellow troops then. Don't believe the doctored footage that the one-way US government feeds you. This campaign has succeeded in overthrowing Saddam's government, but to say it has been well done is wrong.

 

Oh, and feel free to call with a nim-wit, idiot or fucktard or whatever your limited vocabulary offers.

Of course, because everything they show us has to be doctored. I'm sure there were thousands more deaths that occurred, and all the American bodies are being shipped home in unmarked crates on some freighter somewhere. Congrads, you've just won the "OMGODZ THE MATRIX IS REAL@#(!@" Frank Zappa Mask Memorial trophy for being an utter tool. You are that out there that you can't believe anything the US Government does is honest or true.

 

Countless deaths of Journalists? I can't think of maybe more than a few dozen, and considering the massive number of troops involved, that's pretty good. Again, to expect a military operation with absolutely no casualties is beyond idiotic. Moving on.... Civilian Deaths. Okay, I'm not sure on an exact number of Civilian deaths. It was under 5,000 or so, correct? Maybe 10? I remember people here predicting around 150,000 and higher for an operation like this. The US Government took very special care to avoid civilian deaths, and it shows in those numbers.

 

Okay, Murmuring Beast, since you obviuosly have the qualifications necessary to run such a massive operation, what would have done different, or what is being done wrong right now and how must it be fixed? What was wrong in the initial assault on Saddam and how could we have completely defeated him in less than a month? Please, I await your astounding wisdom into peace-keeping operations, which you obviously must have to make such negative comments.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Countless deaths of Journalists? I can't think of maybe more than a few dozen, and considering the massive number of troops involved, that's pretty good

 

Idiot.

 

What would I do? Train my men better, get better leaders in too. This is the whole John Wayne action thing that the American troops are blinded by. War is clinical - you go out and attack who needs to be attacked and not swipe at everyone in sight just because they are looking at you.

[Guest Powerplay]

Countless deaths of Journalists? I can't think of maybe more than a few dozen, and considering the massive number of troops involved, that's pretty good

 

Idiot.

 

What would I do? Train my men better, get better leaders in too. This is the whole John Wayne action thing that the American troops are blinded by. War is clinical - you go out and attack who needs to be attacked and not swipe at everyone in sight just because they are looking at you.

Wow, a horribly generic response there. "Get better stuff" is not an answer, it's just rhetoric and in this case it seems to mean "I really don't know". What, specifically, would you train them in that they aren't trained in already? To ask, have you ever gone through a military training course? Do you think that one part deals with how to "Be like Rambo" or something? What John Wayne thing? I haven't seen or heard anything about the troops besides being spectacularly disciplined.

 

But I have to look at this one part:

 

War is clinical - you go out and attack who needs to be attacked and not swipe at everyone in sight just because they are looking at you.

 

Explain to me, exactly, how we didn't do this. Because this war looked surgeon-like when we were hitting Iraqi Governmental buildings on March 21st with pinpoint Cruise Missile Strikes. Please, tell me where we were sloppy, and don't just say "We killed people".

[Guest Cancer Marney]

War is clinical

Funniest thing I've seen all day.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Spectacularly disciplined... My grandfather was in the army and was in World War 2. He was disciplined. No visits from WWE. He actually commented recently that the training was harder than the war. Men he knew wouldn't miss, wouldn't mis-fire. The American troops are now abusing their power by abusing innocents. Of course, you're just happy to go along with George Dubya's "everything will be alright " policy.

 

Plus it took 4 hours to kill two men a couple of days ago. Wow, that's real accuracy.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Funniest thing I've seen all day.

 

You make me laugh too. We would be very happy together, I think.

[Guest Powerplay]

Spectacularly disciplined... My grandfather was in the army and was in World War 2. He was disciplined. No visits from WWE. He actually commented recently that the training was harder than the war. Men he knew wouldn't miss, wouldn't mis-fire. The American troops are now abusing their power by abusing innocents. Of course, you're just happy to go along with George Dubya's "everything will be alright " policy.

 

Plus it took 4 hours to kill two men a couple of days ago. Wow, that's real accuracy.

Excuse me, but reminiscing about how training was harder with Grandpa isn't an argument, because:

 

1) He never compares training of old to the training of today. Without a comparision, it means nothing. To think that today's training is a breeze is bullshit: Hell, in World War II their training was very accelerated, considering that we had to continually supply people into combat. To say that today's Army is an untrained rabble of Rambo wannabes is not only offensive, but totally ignorant.

 

Edit: And it was FOUR MEN in four hours, and we tried vainly to take them alive. Only when we realized that wasn't going to happen did we show off our firepower.

 

2) You think there were never friendly fire incidents in WWII? LOL1943! Just because he knew when and when not to doesn't mean it didn't happen sometimes. World War II was not at all a clinical thing; it was a great big bloody mess. Civilians got shot in that one too, dontchaknow. In every war there are friendly fire accidents, and you know what? THEY ARE ACCIDENTS. THEY HAPPEN. NOTHING IS PERFECT.

 

3) American Troops abusing power? Proof, please. Otherwise it's just another of your baseless accusations.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Hell, in World War II their training was very accelerated, considering that we had to continually supply people into combat

 

My Grandfather like many others served in the army long before the war. He started in 1933, six years before the war began.

 

A 12 year old boy was either injured or killed by US troops a couple of days ago. He was harmed in any case.

[Guest Powerplay]

Hell, in World War II their training was very accelerated, considering that we had to continually supply people into combat

 

My Grandfather like many others served in the army long before the war. He started in 1933, six years before the war began.

 

A 12 year old boy was either injured or killed by US troops a couple of days ago. He was harmed in any case.

So then, unless the Army has suddenly gone soft, wouldn't you think that the training that modern-day soldiers would endure would be just as bad? I mean, troops have to go through a few weeks as a POW in our training. Interrogations, horrible living conditions, malnutrition, captivity... you don't think that's gruelling?

 

And to ask, how many twelve-year-old boys got hurt in WWII?

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Many 12 year old boys were killed in World War 2, no denying that, although those were not intentional killings or acts of sadism on the parts of the Allies.

 

Captured troops who have surrendered have been treated abysmally - forced to stay awake, given little to eat or drink - which goes against human rights. How can you justify the torture of these people when they have given themselves up? We are not talking about air-raids here - this is one-on-one abuse.

[Guest Powerplay]

Many 12 year old boys were killed in World War 2, no denying that, although those were not intentional killings or acts of sadism on the parts of the Allies.

 

Captured troops who have surrendered have been treated abysmally - forced to stay awake, given little to eat or drink - which goes against human rights. How can you justify the torture of these people when they have given themselves up? We are not talking about air-raids here - this is one-on-one abuse.

I'm sorry, but I didn't know that so many Marines had a "Killing pre-teens" fetish. Allow me to rescind my previous comments.

 

Secondly, you have proof of this? Because I only saw a few reports saying a very small number of British troops had engaged in such actions, and were stopped immediately thereafter. I've heard tons about Americans and British troops handling and feeding troopers well, and hell, they've released practically all of them anyways (Does anyone remember not long ago the protest for troop wages for them being paid by the US? Who do you think a majority of those people were?)

 

Of course, that is to say that capture troops in WWII were always treated with utter civility. Did you ever see Band of Brothers, where the one guy goes after a suspected SS officer near the end of the war? He drives up to this little cabin, finds the guy (Who he doesn't have actual proof of him being the officer) and proceeds to beat him down and then shoot him as he's asking for mercy. I suppose that's not "One-on-One" enough for ya, eh?

[Murmuring Beast 0]

World War 2 and this "war" shouldn't be compared because World War 2 was combat between sides of equal proportions. This invasion of Iraq is scarcely a war. Their is no contest: The Coalition troops will over power the small Iraqi forces.

 

I have knowledge of these acts of cruetly occuring and you should have too. And is it acceptable for a small group of soldiers to torture civilians because the others don't? It doesn't matter if it's one or one million lives is at stake. They all matter as much.