Author Topic: E U voted today (Read 870 times)

Monk · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2003, 06:23:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ping
From what I recall Beet1e, The coalition with the prisoners very best interests at heart sent the prisoners back to face trial for surrendering.

Not true Ping.

Ping · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2003, 06:27:50 AM »

Monk:
If you can show me some links I would gladly read them. I can only go from hazey memory of that time, so I could very well be wrong.

Monk · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2003, 06:37:56 AM »

Sorry I can't, but to my knowledge, they were sent to Saudi.
There they had a choice to go back or too stay.

Another story: we ran upon a Iraqi truck with a couple of soldiers in it.
Did we take them prisoner....na, took there weapons, and told them to go home. You should have seen thier faces, Blew that "Great Satan" theory out of the water.

This was standard practice in the last days of the war, at least for us. Get INTEL, destroy weapons, send them home.

Toad · « **Reply #18 on:** February 18, 2003, 07:58:59 AM »

Come now, Monk.

What would YOU know about it after all?

Let these guys tell you how it really was. Let them tell you how you abused and slaughtered the Iraqi troops.

Sheesh... you act like you know something just because you were there.

Monk · « **Reply #19 on:** February 18, 2003, 08:50:26 AM »

Rgr, Toad.

Oh here is another, ran into some Mech. Div 10th or 15th or something, this is the 23th of Feb.( the ground war officially started the 24th.)

One of the "Iraqis" is from Chicago, duel Passport. he was visiting his family, when he was pressed into service. Christ, he didn't even have a freakin weapon.

Or...... we hear some shots off our right flank, so we check it out.
Someone fires a 25mm, at a bunker, more like a big foxhole, kills an Iraqi soldier.

Come to find there are about 10 soldiers there, 1 weapon, they had shot in the air, because they were afraid that we would go by without seeing them, so they could surrender. What roadkill
1 weapon no food, very little water.

(This is scary, coming back like its yesterday)

This is why I feel we need to go in, These people want to get rid of Saddam, more then we do.

Ping · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2003, 08:53:26 AM »

Scuse me Toad, directed at me?
I never claimed that the coalition did that to the prisoners.

Ping · « **Reply #21 on:** February 18, 2003, 09:25:41 AM »

Monk..I was wrong.
Here is what happened.

http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/afn_iraq_pows.htm
By war's end, almost 110,000 enemy soldiers were taken to two camps in Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of them had been captured by United Nations coalition forces. They eventually were repatriated to Iraq under the auspices of the International Red Cross after Saddam Hussein issued a general amnesty.
[snip]
In early 1992, according to the State Department, it became clear that conditions in Iraq precluded the safe return of many of the 4,000 Iraqi soldiers and other refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concluded that other solutions, such as resettlement in other countries, had to be found.

Along with the United States, Sweden, Denmark and Norway also agreed to accept some of the camp refugees.

Eagler · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2003, 09:48:26 AM »

Monk

You have to be mistaken .. they voted him, Saddam, in 100% to nothing

StSanta · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2003, 10:13:55 AM »

Yeah see? Scandinavia and the US offering to get some of the soldiers that surrendered.

I met one of them at school. A 40 year old ex Colonel in the Iraqi air force. He flew helicopters and was captured after US planes bombed his chopper - he was wise enough to take to the air, fly for five minutes towards the front, land, wait. He thus survived.

You should see his face when he talks about Saddam. Pure hatred.

And now he is in Denmark. He fought in the Iran-Iraq war, probably killing a lot of people. He's a Colonel used to flying combat aircraft. And now he's being passed on the inside by snotty 20-somethings with little life experience living in a sheltered nation. All while knowing his family is still in Iraq. Apparently, the surrendering soldiers could be relocated, but not their families. I gather that's Saddam's way of ensuring they won't speak too loudly.

beet1e · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2003, 12:24:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
You should see his face when he talks about Saddam. Pure hatred.

and...

Quote

Originally posted by Monk
This is why I feel we need to go in, These people want to get rid of Saddam, more then we do.

and...

Quote

Originally said by an Iraqi bloke I met in Tenerife
Saddam Hussein is the worst animal, the most evil creature ever to contaminate the earth. He is worse than Adolf Hitler, worse even than Joseph Stalin.

and...

Quote

Originally said by an Iraqi woman to Tony Benn, who blamed thousands of Iraqi deaths on sanctions
No Mr. Benn! It's not the sanctions that are killing our people, it is Saddam who is doing all the killing.

and...

Quote

Originally posted by sabre
Blix has as much as stated that inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq, if Iraq is intent on hiding WMD from the inspectors. He has said specifically that more inspectors are not the answer. Only if Iraq embraces the disarmament process, enthusiastically, publicly, and honestly as South Africa did, can there be any hope that inspectors will be able to verify Iraq if free of WMD. There is no sign that Saddam intends to do so, so removing Saddam is the only way to end the suffering of Iraq while insuring that country is no longer a threat to world peace and stability.

Ahoy there Blitz! And Bounder, and Dowding - are you listening? Do you get the message now? These are accounts which have come from actual Iraqis. These accounts speak VOLUMES - far more than can be derived from 999,999 uninformed, blinkered fools waving anti-Bush banners. (Bounder is not a fool)

Let's see, it's almost 6:30. France must be due to call for another last chance to be given to Saddam...

Dowding · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2003, 02:28:55 PM »

I'd study Liam Lynch a little more closely, Beetle. I've never said Saddam was a nice guy. No one denies Saddam needs to be disposed of. It's all about the method and the circumstances in which that method is employed. It should be done with a UN mandate, IMO.

straffo · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:02:07 PM »

Exactly my though.

Hortlund · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2003, 05:06:34 PM »

And when the UN will not give such a mandate because France is blocking such a resolution? What then?

The question begs an answer you know...what do we do if the UN fails to call for violence against Iraq? WHAT THEN?
WHAT?

beet1e · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2003, 07:33:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
I'd study Liam Lynch a little more closely, Beetle. I've never said Saddam was a nice guy. No one denies Saddam needs to be disposed of. It's all about the method and the circumstances in which that method is employed. It should be done with a UN mandate, IMO.

Had to do a Google search for Liam Lynch - political protest singer was all I came up with. Dunno what he has to do with the price of fish.

I'm coming round to Rude's point of view. Let the US go into Iraq, with or without UN blessing. I'm coming round to the view "What's the UN got to do with it anyway?" So Dowding, remind us WHY we need to await UN approval. I'm afraid I've forgotten/lost the plot... It was the US that was targeted by the 911 attacks, and they (Dubya) warned that the war on terror would extend beyond Afghanistan/Taleban/OBL - to other belligerent countries that may sponsor terrorism against the US. And Iraq is one.

Ossie · « **Reply #29 on:** February 18, 2003, 08:08:34 PM »

Quote

It should be done with a UN mandate, IMO.

Forgive me for getting lost in all of the technical terminology, but what exactly would a UN mandate to remove Saddam entail? What does that allow/disallow, and how is the goal of the mandate reached/enforced?