Saddam's Sons May Have Died in Raid

[Guest Powerplay]

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.

You used it as a reference. You said that "People knew when to fire and when not to", which is basically saying there was no friendly fire in WWII. That's just a blatantly moronic statement there. You used it to say that "Training was harder back then", and you haven't gotten any proof of that.

 

You have knowledge from who, exactly? Your rebel insider friend who is trying to bring down the US Government? A ultra-leftist website that thinks Bush landing on the Aircraft Carrier was a way to swindle the US Taxpayers out of yet more money? Give me the proof, otherwise you have no proof. Of course, I'm sure you'll bring up something like BX did, a rape trial from 3 years ago in Shanghai or something, using it the actions of a few to damn the whole. Wouldn't that put you in the same boat with the people who said all the Germans still hate Jews?

 

Your whole argument is based on something that you only assume, and lack any proof of. Just quit while you are ahead because you are just embarrassing yourself.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

I'll stop now because this isn't going anywhere, other than you trying to hammer me into the ground with "we're great and correct and you're not " I used World War 2 as a example because you asked about what I knew about combat techniques. You then chose to advance the World War 2 topic.

[Guest Powerplay]

I'll stop now because this isn't going anywhere, other than you trying to hammer me into the ground with "we're great and correct and you're not " I used World War 2 as a example because you asked about what I knew about combat techniques. You then chose to advance the World War 2 topic.

I didn't say we were great and correct all the time. I acknowledge that we've had casualties, but for an operation that even the most ardent liberals on the board said went off incredibly well, you seem to think it was a blunder of monumentous size.

 

You used World War II to show what your combat technique knowledge was? Your Grandpa telling you "We trained hard back then"? You never even compared it to today's troops! All you did was say that and suddenly say "American troops are out of control, abusing their power!" You presented no proof, not even a comparison or a solution.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Twenty Iraqis claim abuse by coalition troops

===============================

Dipesh Gadher and Jonathon Carr-Brown

SUNDAY TIMES

 

 

MORE than 20 Iraqi prisoners of war have accused British and American troops

of mistreating them in custody.

Amnesty International, the human rights group, has been presented with

complaints ranging from allegations of prisoners being kicked and beaten

with weapons to the application of electric shocks.

 

The organisation, which is seeking to corroborate the claims, believes some

of the acts described constitute torture and could be in flagrant breach of

international law.

 

The new allegations come in the wake of a Ministry of Defence (MoD) probe

into claims that a group of British soldiers photographed themselves

"torturing" Iraqi captives.

 

The government has sought to contrast the fair conduct of British troops

with the brutal methods used by the deposed Iraqi regime. Tonight the BBC

will broadcast controversial footage of the bodies of two British bomb

disposal experts who were killed by Iraqi militiamen following an ambush in

southern Iraq.

 

The decision to air the seven-second clip, originally shown by Al-Jazeera,

the Arab satellite news channel, has angered the families of Staff Sergeant

Simon Cullingworth and Sapper Luke Allsopp. However, the BBC claims the

footage, in which the dead soldiers' faces have been obscured, is "in the

public interest" as it highlights the difference in news values between

Al-Jazeera and western broadcasters.

 

During the war Tony Blair claimed the two men had been executed, but

military personnel told their families they had been killed in action. This

weekend it emerged that Khalid Barour, a senior Ba'ath party official

arrested in connection with their deaths, has been released without charge.

 

The MoD investigation into the "torture photos" scandal was triggered last

week after an 18-year-old soldier handed in a film at a processing

laboratory in Tamworth, Staffordshire. One of the photographs appears to

show a gagged and bound Iraqi prisoner suspended by rope from a fork-lift

truck being driven by a laughing soldier.

 

Other pictures apparently show British soldiers forcing semi-naked PoWs to

engage in sex acts, real or simulated.

 

Last night, Gary Bartlam, the soldier from the 1st Battalion the Royal

Regiment of Fusiliers who handed in the film, was being questioned by

military police. Investigators are believed to be interviewing other members

of Bartlam's eight-man unit and may question other men in the battalion.

 

Kelly Tilford, who developed the film, said: "I felt sick when I looked at

the pictures. I immediately realised something terribly wrong had happened

and something had to be done."

 

Those involved in mistreating PoWs could face military prison as well as a

dishonourable discharge.

 

Evidence that abuse of PoWs was widespread would be highly damaging to a

government already reeling from claims that it put pressure on the security

services to "sex up" a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to

justify the war.

 

The International Committee of the Red Cross accused coalition forces yesterday of failing to follow the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of prisoners of war.

 

As British and American anger over the parading of five American soldiers on Iraqi television continued unabated, the ICRC said the allies and the Iraqis should re-examine the way they handled PoWs.

 

Referring to Article 13 in the third convention, Florian Westphal, from the ICRC, said PoWs should at all times be humanely treated, protected particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against "insults and public curiosity".

 

He referred to photographs in the media last week which showed an Iraqi soldier in close-up being given water by American troops.

 

Neither side was treating PoWs in accordance with the convention, said Mr Westphal.

 

In a letter to The Telegraph today, Louise Christian, solicitor for three British detainees in Guantanamo Bay, said the US was breaching international law there. "On their original arrest Guantanamo detainees too were humiliated and paraded on TV manacled, shackled and hooded," she said.

 

Look, neither of us is right or wrong. The troops have done a lot of good, but I just get tired of the whole "everything is rosy" when there is still a lot of hypocrisy and cover ups and pain occuring.

[Guest Powerplay]

Again, I recognized the British ones. I never said they didn't occur. But to damn all the troops by actions of the few doesn't mean they are an untrained rabble. But this one confuses me:

 

He referred to photographs in the media last week which showed an Iraqi soldier in close-up being given water by American troops.

 

What the heck is wrong with that?

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Beats me.

 

Thanks for the argument, fella.

[Guest EricMM]

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.

 

I would like to say first: this was war. This was a war that took place in cities. This was a war that was carried out by troops posing as civilians, using false surrenders to kill soldiers, and many other deceptive forms of fighting. How the U.S. soldiers were supposed to effectively do their job without killing a few people I'd like to know...

 

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.

 

If this war had been fought on battle fields maybe it would have been this easy. But of course it was not, and since Iraqi military equipment was being placed next to hospitals, orphanages, and god knows what else, civilian casualties were INEVITABLE. Please blame the person who told the troops to dress like civilians and hid the AAA guns in the cities.

 

My grandfather was in the army and was in World War 2

 

As your grandfather how many carpet bombings took place during WW2. Guess what, if we wanted to eliminate the Iraqis in a week, we probably could have. I mean, for crying out loud, bombing cities was the thing to do in WW2! See London, Hiroshima, etc. etc. To compare the amount of death and destruction from this war and WW2 is just so funny. I mean not even the despicable Nazis tried to force the Allies to commit war crimes on their own people so they could complain to someone...

 

Captured troops who have surrendered have been treated abysmally - forced to stay awake, given little to eat or drink - which goes against human rights.

 

I'm sure these people are being asked questions that they are not answering. I'd like to know how else we should get people to talk. I don't know what does or doesn't go against international law, but all they have to do is talk... Talking would save American lives.

 

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.

 

What is this supposed to prove? It doesn't matter if Iraq has an army of millions or one, if someone is sitting in a building and sniping at troops, there is a chance of American soldiers dying. If that can be prevented by shelling the building, then that's what's going to happen. I don't know why you expect American troops to die so Iraqis don't, even though that's basically what happened...

 

I'll stop now because this isn't going anywhere, other than you trying to hammer me into the ground with "we're great and correct and you're not "

 

You should stop now because you haven't effectively argued a single bloody point. (I really don't know if I mean in this thread or this folder) I mean I could point out how your basic demands for a sterile war are basically flawed, but that's not the main point. The main point is this: you cannot accept that the Iraqi war was a success or a good thing. You have to find each civilian kill, while you ignore all the civilians that weren't killed. You ignore every soldier treated humanely and trot out each one that was mistreated. Let me tell you something bud: if we lost this conflict, I don't think any U.S. citizens captured would have been fed and released like most of the Iraqis have been. It's like, you're desperate for the U.S. to be the big bad guy, and you can't accept that we really were the good guys in this conflict. Why is that so hard?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

What in the hell happened to our civilized argument?

[Guest EricMM]

Murmering Beast dropped the IGNORANCE~!

 

Seriously Tyler, do you agree with what he said? I'm a liberal overall, and he's just laughable...

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Look guys, the invasion was the right thing to do, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing against those that say that this campaign has been a great success when it hasn't.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I've been gone all weekend, but...

 

Uh, he's going pretty far out there.

[Guest Some Guy]

Again, I recognized the British ones. I never said they didn't occur. But to damn all the troops by actions of the few doesn't mean they are an untrained rabble. But this one confuses me:

 

He referred to photographs in the media last week which showed an Iraqi soldier in close-up being given water by American troops.

 

What the heck is wrong with that?

There's something in the Geneva that says you can't display POWs in a demeaning way or soemthing, that's why there was a big uproar over teh media taking pictures of teh terrorists in Cuba. I don't think that showing someone drinking water qualifies though.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No, but the pictures of Uday and Qusay do.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

 

Rumsfeld SHAKES HANDS with Saddam in the 80s.

 

(CNN) -- Twenty years ago, the U.S. government was building ties to Saddam Hussein's government -- not trying to overthrow it.

 

In the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration sent then-private citizen Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to improve relations. Rumsfeld is now the U.S. secretary of defense.

 

Saddam's regime was using much of Iraq's burgeoning oil revenue to improve the daily lives of its people. It even won UN humanitarian awards for its literacy programs.

 

Amatzia Baram, a professor at the University of Haifa, said Saddam's administration improved the nation's infrastructure, such as roads, electrical grids, hospitals, water systems and -- to an extent -- women's status. "However, all this came at the -- at the expense of personal freedoms," he said.

 

To the United States, Iraq's secular regime was an important counter-balance to Iran, where anti-American passion mixed with radical Islam had led to the overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah.

 

"In the 1980's, our Arab allies in the region and our own assessment convinced us that Iraq might be a new kind of moderate Arab leader, that [saddam] could be brought into the moderate Arab camp," said New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler.

 

Favoring Iraq over Iran

When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 over a border dispute, the United States tilted toward Saddam -- secretly supplying intelligence to hit Iranian positions.

 

The relationship with Iraq was severely tested after Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and even gassed rebellious Kurds in the northern part of the country.

 

"Congress reacted, the public reacted, and this made it all the more complicated for the United States to continue its, its secret assistance to the Iraqi military," Tyler said.

 

 

In 1981, the Israeli Air Force bombed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. 

 

 

Meanwhile Iraq had begun a secret program of its own: nuclear weapons. In 1981, Israel bombed and destroyed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad believed to be the foundation of the weapons program.

 

Both the United Nations and the United States denounced the preemptive strike. But the Israeli attack was only a temporary setback.

 

Iraq went on a multi-billion dollar buying binge, purchasing components for building a nuclear bomb from Western companies eager for cash.

 

Khidir Hamza headed Iraq's nuclear weapons program before defecting in 1994. He says Iraq used the cover of scientific research to purchase nuclear-related equipment.

 

"And you tell them you need equipment for research, and they tell you, "What kind of research?" And you make up a story," he said. "A good one.We are scientists; We can make good stories, and they buy it. They buy the story and they sell us the equipment."

 

Turning against Saddam

It wasn't until Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, that the United States turned against Saddam. Iraq was now seen as big a danger to U.S. interests as Iran.

 

 

After the Gulf War, the first Bush administration believed Saddam Hussein would be overthrown from within Iraq. 

 

 

"Now the same fear was being projected on Iraq -- that he was an alarming, threatening leader in the region who was out to grab the oil weapon and use it against the West," Tyler said.

 

The resulting Persian Gulf War ended Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but the U.S forces did not go all the way to Baghdad to overthrow him.

 

President Bush, the father of the current president, feared that expanding the mission would destroy his international coalition because the goal of the U.N. resolutions backing the armed conflict focused only on removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

 

"We could have rode into Baghdad in 48 hours, and then all hell would have been broken loose," former President Bush said. "And we would have been standing alone making a martyr out of a defeated brute and tyrant, Saddam Hussein."

 

After the Gulf War, U.S. officials believed Saddam would be overthrown internally.

 

 

Bush warned the U.N. that the U.S. is prepared to deal with Iraq with or without U.N. support. 

 

 

"After the Gulf War, I went around and talked to a number of very senior Bush administration officials, some of whom are in the new Bush administration, and they all assured me Saddam Hussein would fall in six months, because that was the basic take in the American intelligence community," said New York Times military affairs reporter Michael Gordon.

 

Now the second President Bush is pushing hard to remove Saddam from power.

 

"The American people know my position," he said. "And that is that regime change is in the interest of the world."

 

But after all these years, why now threaten war? The Bush administration believes that in a post-September 11 environment, threats must be dealt with pre-emptively, according to CNN Senior White House Correspondent John King, who has covered the administration since it came into office.

 

"Everybody knew on September 10th Osama bin Laden was a threat to the United States and its interests. He was not dealt with decisively. Look what happened. That is the president's policy now. See a threat, deal with the threat or pay the price ... and Iraq is test number one."

 

Over the summer, the administration stepped up its case for a preemptive attack, with President Bush outlining the new doctrine for pre-emptive attacks in a commencement speech at West Point.

 

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long," Bush said.

 

But prominent members of the president's own party balked. Texas Rep. Dick Armey, a member of the House Republican leadership, said the United States should just let Saddam bluster.

 

"As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack of resources against him," Armey said.

 

Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser during the first Bush administration and mentor of current National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, warned against a "go-it-alone" strategy in the Wall Street Journal.

 

"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Scowcroft wrote in the September 15, 2002, edition on the Journal's editorial page.

 

Lawrence Eagleburger, who also served in the first Bush administration, also spoke out, saying the nation need answers before any war against Iraq.

 

"How long do we stay? How much does it cost? What does it do to our conditions within that part of the world? What kind of a regime do we put in his place? How long does it last if it seems that we are the ones that put him in his place?" Eagleburger said during a September 25 interview on CNN's "Late Edition." "I think there are any number of complex questions that simply haven't been examined."

 

With pressure from critics mounting, the Bush administration took its case to the United Nations. In a September 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Bush said the UN risked the possibility of becoming irrelevant if it didn't enforce its own resolutions against Iraq.

 

The president also warned that if the UN did not stand up to Saddam, the U.S. would.

 

"By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand," he said. "And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well."

 

Bush's speech was well-received but support for his approach remains divided. Great Britain has been very supportive, as have other European nations. But Germany is opposing a war in Iraq and many Middle East countries have voiced doubts as well.

 

Link To Article

Hmm, Europe caved into Hitler in the 1930's.

 

Europeans = NAZIS!!!

-=Mike

...Irrelevancy is easy

[Guest TheMikeSC]

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.

Amazingly enough, guerilla warfare has been a time-tested exceptionally effective means of inflicting casualties.

 

Sun Tzu wouldn't be able to settle Iraq without casualties.

 

When you have nothing else to gripe about, gripe that perfection hasn't been achieved.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

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.

Hmm, NO friendly fire deaths in WWII? No small problems?

 

Or maybe --- JUST maybe --- the press DIDN'T MENTION them?

 

Your grandfather is senile.

-=Mike