Islamic Nazis behead children in Iraq

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If I had to compare an Iraqi insurgent, or an American solider to the Nazi's... I definately wouldnt be chosing the Iraqi solider, but I wouldnt WANT to chose the american solider.

The insurgents are the closest to the Nazis due to there ingrained hatred of there enemy's.

the fact is, the Iraqis ( the non extremists who slaughter American soliders ) are more like the french,

More like French collaborates ?
IMO the Iraqis who aren't extremists want the civil war to end but they also wouldn't want to lose the newly gained freedoms.

Lets be honest, France didnt invade Germany, thus meaning we had to retaliate against.. err Germany..

But Iraq did invade Kuwait and Saddam was a menace unlike the French sure other ways needed to be found to deal with Saddam but that is another topic.

I will leave the legality of the Iraq war for another topic but I will say that even if the war was or is illegal it has no bearing on the actions the enemy takes. I also think that coalition leaders let there political ideology override reality but that is also another topic.

There was the likes of electricity pre war but it wasn't up to first world standards and the likes of Education would have been dominated by brainwashing kids into following Saddam rather then educating them in an western sense.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If I had to compare an Iraqi insurgent, or an American solider to the Nazi's... I definately wouldnt be chosing the Iraqi solider, but I wouldnt WANT to chose the american solider.

The insurgents are the closest to the Nazis due to there ingrained hatred of there enemy's.

Their enemies, you mean the foreign occupying army?
So if the FRENCH had this sort of blind hatred for the nazi's sipping tea in a paris residence, its a different thing to the iraqis having a blind hatred for the americans, sipping beer in a baghdad residence?

More like French collaborates ?
IMO the Iraqis who aren't extremists want the civil war to end but they also wouldn't want to lose the newly gained freedoms.

Your probably right, but why does that make them collaborates?
One one hand, you've got a foreign army in power, on the other you've got 'super-agitated' fellow country men blowing up everyone, hoping to force the occupying army out..
Then youve got a curropt government, who's ore concerned with your x-enemies government than your own lifestyle.
If I were them id want neither either.
who'd you chose?

But Iraq did invade Kuwait and Saddam was a menace unlike the French sure other ways needed to be found to deal with Saddam but that is another topic.

Sure did, over a decade ago? and they were super-punished for it... the punishment worked too, cause no more weapons nor a hostile army built..
Why does an 80's 'minor' invasion still required military force over a decade later when there's no chance of repeat?

I will leave the legality of the Iraq war for another topic but I will say that even if the war was or is illegal it has no bearing on the actions the enemy takes. I also think that coalition leaders let there political ideology override reality but that is also another topic.

Yep, thankgod for ATS hey!
We're people can still debate differences, without using a gun.

Funny how talk always brings out the best in people, Its a wonder we didnt try it back in 2001.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by xpert11

There was the likes of electricity pre war but it wasn't up to first world standards and the likes of Education would have been dominated by brainwashing kids into following Saddam rather then educating them in an western sense.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by xpert11]

True, but in 2000 overall lifestyle, nessecities and freedoms were enjoyed by all, in extreme amounts compared to the unfortunate well-being of todays Iraqi's...

And again your right, Saddam's books werent good for young minds..
But what are ours going to say, of the
'' Great-Iraqi-liberation '' in 10yrs time?

Probably the same the Japanese books say, about the attrocities in China.
Point is every country tells their youth whats nessecary for them to be patriotic.

This is where your comparison breaks down the coalition forces aren't the primary target of the insurgents instead there fellow Iraqis (who aren't necessary aiding the Iraqi government ) are there primary target. So in other words other then collaborates the French underground didnt target there fellow citizens based on ethnic differences e.t.c .

The Nazis deported Jews to the gas chambers the coalition is hardly doing any thing like that and before you bring it up the torture scandals and people support for torturing terror suspects has cost the US the moral high ground I will say that. Unlike in WW2 the ID of the enemy is not so clear cut although the media would have you think otherwise. Osama cronies are certainly made out to be the sole enemy in Iraq.

Well the insurgents would see anyone who doesn't subscribe to there belief system or anyone who supports the democratically elected government as collaborates of sorts . To answer your next question I would either run for office with the aim of stamping out corruption or I would leave the country. Like I said other ways needed to be found to deal with Saddam.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Sure did, over a decade ago? and they were super-punished for it... the punishment worked too, cause no more weapons nor a hostile army built..
Why does an 80's 'minor' invasion still required military force over a decade later when there's no chance of repeat?

I rarely get upset over things that I read on ATS anymore. I've come to realize that most posters simply vent and talk out of the butts about subjects they know little about. I accepted that for the most part but every once in a while I read comments from a poster and I almost can't believe the crap they write. I have to wonder, are they really this filled with blind hatred that they cannot discern reality or are they just children who are ignorant and unworldly.

First lets try to get the right decade. The invasion of Kuwait happened in August of 1990, not the 80's. Then, as someone who knew people who survived this "minor" invasion as you call it let me list let me list some of the "minor" war crimes. The Kuwait people, at the hands of Saddam's army had to undergo tortures by amputation, electric shock, electric drills, acid baths, rape, forced self-cannibalism, and dismemberment. They took away incubators and left babies die. Scores of woman were raped repeatedly. The mentally ill were executed. Hundreds of children under the age of 13 were murdered. All from that "minor" invasion.

Because of this invasion and war Saddam and his country was put under UN sanctions, which then Saddam violated over and over including not letting weapon inspectors do their jobs and inspect facilities for illegal weapons.

The truth is if Saddam was not a megalomaniac and did not invade Kuwait we would not be sitting where we are today in the world. There is one man to blame for much of the current middle easts problems and his name was Saddam Hussein. If Saddam would have been a good leader who cared about his people - someone who did the very best to make his country a friend to the world - a man who is trustworthy, honest and fair - a man who rejected evil then Iraq would have been one of the worlds leading nations.

This period of human history should show historians how many horrible problems can be caused in the world by one corrupt tyrant.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by zerotime]

Zerotime - great post!

Unfortuantely it is wasted on this board. People refuse that facts that Sadamm was invoilation of the cease-fire agreement after the 1990 Gulf War, that he withheld the money from the oil-for-food program from 'his' people and instead build lavish palaces, that Russia, Germany, France, England and the US thought Sadamm had WMD's........but those are not important FACTS.

Originally posted by xpert11


No I'm just saying that people seem to be more inclined to believe what the enemy has to say rather then the coalition . The people who think that every report about civilian deaths caused by the coalition is true tend to ignore threads like this one or dismiss the contend as propaganda.


[edit on 2-7-2007 by xpert11]

Well thats just based on the way our own government has responded to us. People are more inclined to believe the person that hasn't been known to lie to us yet. Its just a shame that its not the government, the people spying on us domestically, torturing people in prisons, and lieing about the pretenses to war, and it just so happens that the people that haven't lied to us (or haven't been caught yet) are the enemy.

So really, is it that people are inclined to believe the enemy more, or is that just a product of our enviroment. After all, if a government flat out lied to us before, how can we trust them again? with anything they say?

"Fool me once, shame on you...fooled....ugh...you can't fool me again"
-An allegedly old proverb from Texas.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

or do you too doubt the fullness of this iraqi on iraqi slaughter?

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Agit8dChop]

I don't doubt it at all. I hate to stereotype or be mean here, but that is what they have been doing in the Middle East for over 5000 years. No surprise that it still happens.

Originally posted by zerotime
First lets try to get the right decade. The invasion of Kuwait happened in August of 1990, not the 80's.
[edit on 2-7-2007 by zerotime]

Technically speaking, 1990 is the last year of the 80's decade so you are wrong on that score. I agree with the rest of your diatribe about Saddam being a bad man, yada yada yada. Who wouldn't agree with that? The rest of the war crimes commited on Kuwait is still nothing new to the 20th century. Nothing surpasses the Nazis in my mind.

The truth is if Saddam was not a megalomaniac and did not invade Kuwait we would not be sitting where we are today in the world.

I haven't posted on here in a long long time but I saw this and had to respond.

Granted, Saddam DID invade Kuwait, but he did so because Iraq at the time had a strong belief that Kuwait BELONGED to Iraq. And if it wasn't for the US basically giving Saddam the green light to do so, or at least giving Iraq the impression that it "was none of our business" he most likely never would have!

External Source

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

He flat out ASKED what the US response would be to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the US Ambassador (April Glaspie) stated very clearly that the United States has no interest in Arab v Arab conflicts. So.. he invaded. So the entire Kuwait / Gulf War I conflict quite possibly COULD HAVE been avoided.

Derek

[edit on 2-7-2007 by DerekJR321]

Originally posted by xpert11
It is true that the sons and daughters of US millionaires don't end up in the US military but I will leave that for another topic.
[edit on 2-7-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I mean after-all, the US is forcing anyone who's broke, with a mouth to feed and has NO work in the illegial-imigrant flooded youth employment market, who signs up for a paycheque to kill people, whom they themselves DO not believe deserve it.

This is a little off topic, but as a company XO and CO in the US Army I had several soldiers that came from very wealthy families. Granted, the majority did not come from wealthy families, but only a small minority came from extremely poor families. The fact that the above statements were made show a tremendous amount of ignorance on behalf of both of the posters.

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If I had to compare an Iraqi insurgent, or an American solider to the Nazi's... I definately wouldnt be chosing the Iraqi solider, but I wouldnt WANT to chose the american solider.

The insurgents are the closest to the Nazis due to there ingrained hatred of there enemy's.

the fact is, the Iraqis ( the non extremists who slaughter American soliders ) are more like the french,

More like French collaborates ?
IMO the Iraqis who aren't extremists want the civil war to end but they also wouldn't want to lose the newly gained freedoms.

Lets be honest, France didnt invade Germany, thus meaning we had to retaliate against.. err Germany..

But Iraq did invade Kuwait and Saddam was a menace unlike the French sure other ways needed to be found to deal with Saddam but that is another topic.

I will leave the legality of the Iraq war for another topic but I will say that even if the war was or is illegal it has no bearing on the actions the enemy takes. I also think that coalition leaders let there political ideology override reality but that is also another topic.

There was the likes of electricity pre war but it wasn't up to first world standards and the likes of Education would have been dominated by brainwashing kids into following Saddam rather then educating them in an western sense.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by xpert11]

Very true xpert, dont forget who Saddam's idol was. Josef Stalin ... "The Great Leader of the People's" and Saddam went to great lengths to emulate Stalin ex. the statues and paintings of Saddam all over the place.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by ChrisF231]

Originally posted by crusader97
This is a little off topic, but as a company XO and CO in the US Army I had several soldiers that came from very wealthy families. Granted, the majority did not come from wealthy families, but only a small minority came from extremely poor families. The fact that the above statements were made show a tremendous amount of ignorance on behalf of both of the posters.

Im not saying every solider is... but be honest... the majority are not wealthy people.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by crusader97
This is a little off topic, but as a company XO and CO in the US Army I had several soldiers that came from very wealthy families. Granted, the majority did not come from wealthy families, but only a small minority came from extremely poor families. The fact that the above statements were made show a tremendous amount of ignorance on behalf of both of the posters.

Im not saying every solider is... but be honest... the majority are not wealthy people.

I agree, most aren't extremely wealthy. Neither are most poor. Most are middle class, just like most of America.

Originally posted by crusader97
I agree, most aren't extremely wealthy. Neither are most poor. Most are middle class, just like most of America.

Thank you! I fail to see how everyone thinks the US Army or any branch for that matter is at the same time the most advanced warfighting machine on the planet and filled with the poor, downtrodden, and lower educated of America.

true, but highschool kids fresh out of graduation, who have the choice of working in a 7-11 ,or a burger barn.. see all this 'kewl-exciting' stuff happening.. explosions, guns, etc etc... arent mature enough to understand the ramifications of what they are doing.

you only need to watch some of the videos on ww.liveleak.com where young americans are shooting up iraqi' insurgents, or detonating car bombs to see these fella's are young, are obviously getting a kick out of being with their 'bro's' while driving around in tanks, and armoured cars.. and being paid to shoot guns...

Yes its a thrill most soliders have, and i envy that... but the majority or soliders are not signing up to save iraqi and become righteous with humanity.. they are doing it for the money, for the action or because they have no other prospect in life.

BUT, there are those honest, hardworking americans who do sign up for the good of the nation...
tis a pitty these good men are being blown up needlessly by carbombs, or by friendly fire...
pitty these men are returning home to slashed benefits..

and its a major kick in the nads, watching others get paid unbelievable amounts to do the same job your doing , without the contract specifications.

American society has sowed a cancer within Iraq, which means success and victory can never be achieved, while ensuring a country in the heart of the middle east sole purpose is revenge, against an illegial occupation that ruined their lives.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Yes its a thrill most soliders have, and i envy that... but the majority or soliders are not signing up to save iraqi and become righteous with humanity.. they are doing it for the money, for the action or because they have no other prospect in life.

Ok I'm assuming your not from America are you?

If not then I find it funny how you are the expert on who is joining the armed forces and why they are. Not to toot my own horn but the people who I serve with in the Army (reserve) and are my age (18-22) do it for either a desire to serve their country, money for college, or because they wanted something different out of life. I'm sorry but I don't understand how a couple liveleak videos prove we are all young, dumb, and have no clue what we are doing. I mean you have to understand machismo and a couple # yeahs when shooting off a 50 cal are part of the psychological makeup of an army. It remains even with gender integration a guy's place or organization. Even senior officers such as a LT. Col or Maj. still get fired up with some Hooahs! and swears when laying down some fire or the like.

I agree, and im not saying ALL are that way, dont get me wrong im sure there are thousands upon thousands of decent soliders ( perhaps like yourself ) fighting in the army.

But we arent exactly over there fighting for our way of life..
not like ww2 where if we had of lost in europe, germany would of taken england and had free range of the US.

No, Iraq is a war of CHOICE, a war of PROFIT and not a war of nessecity.

So I view the people fighting in Iraq as one of a few branches.

1. Honest Americans fighting for their countries honour ( 5>%)
2. Gullable people who still believe Iraq is the root of all evil ie alqaeda (5>%)
3. Young people chasing a pay cheque and a thril (75%>)
4. life long military types who have no choice, but to obey the orders they dont agree with (15%>)


Then youve got to look at the 2nd largest army in Iraq,
the Corporate army of Amerca..

that alone tells me, there are more people fighting in Iraq soley for a pay cheque, than to do the right thing.

Originally posted by zerotime

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Sure did, over a decade ago? and they were super-punished for it... the punishment worked too, cause no more weapons nor a hostile army built..
Why does an 80's 'minor' invasion still required military force over a decade later when there's no chance of repeat?

I rarely get upset over things that I read on ATS anymore. I've come to realize that most posters simply vent and talk out of the butts about subjects they know little about. I accepted that for the most part but every once in a while I read comments from a poster and I almost can't believe the crap they write. I have to wonder, are they really this filled with blind hatred that they cannot discern reality or are they just children who are ignorant and unworldly.

First lets try to get the right decade. The invasion of Kuwait happened in August of 1990, not the 80's. Then, as someone who knew people who survived this "minor" invasion as you call it let me list let me list some of the "minor" war crimes. The Kuwait people, at the hands of Saddam's army had to undergo tortures by amputation, electric shock, electric drills, acid baths, rape, forced self-cannibalism, and dismemberment. They took away incubators and left babies die. Scores of woman were raped repeatedly. The mentally ill were executed. Hundreds of children under the age of 13 were murdered. All from that "minor" invasion.

Because of this invasion and war Saddam and his country was put under UN sanctions, which then Saddam violated over and over including not letting weapon inspectors do their jobs and inspect facilities for illegal weapons.

The truth is if Saddam was not a megalomaniac and did not invade Kuwait we would not be sitting where we are today in the world. There is one man to blame for much of the current middle easts problems and his name was Saddam Hussein. If Saddam would have been a good leader who cared about his people - someone who did the very best to make his country a friend to the world - a man who is trustworthy, honest and fair - a man who rejected evil then Iraq would have been one of the worlds leading nations.

This period of human history should show historians how many horrible problems can be caused in the world by one corrupt tyrant.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by zerotime]

Well I think that Historians will think pretty badly of George W. Bush. Hell, we do't need Historians the think badly of him.

As much as I hate to say it, America has brought this on themselves. Now before you start going off at me, I'm not ragging on the soldiers. FAR from it. Considering at least one person from each Generation of my family has served in a conflict zone from World War 1, I completely understand what the soldier has to go through and endure.l And I completely applaude them for the extremely hard and hazardous job they do.

But, BUT, getting back to what I was saying, America has brought this on themselves. You guys are always on your high horse about how you are trying to save the world, but the way I see it is you are almost as bad as these so called Dictators that you abhore. From supplying arms and funds for the Iran/Contra scandal, to effectively creating the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, through more funding and arms deals during the Afghan/Soviet war, you seem to fail to see your shortcomings.

For just a moment, put the shoe on the other foot. Put yourself in the position of your average Iraqi. You have put up with a dictator most of your life, he gets overthrown by an Invading Army using pretexts that have been PROVEN false, and now you are stuck in the middle of a protracted war between Insurgents (who of at least half are made up of foreigners) and an Army you never invited to come and help in the first place.

It's good to see your hearts are in the right place, but sometimes you have to use your head......

......instead of your heart.

As I said, I complete applaud the job that ALL the service men and women are doing in Iraq, and as I said I can completely understand what they are going through due to having a relative in each major conflict since WW1, but it's your foolish countrymen and women who like to stand on their high horse, and not see the forest through tree's.

Nobody in this world is perfect, but when you claim that your country is the best in the world and can do no wrong, maybe you should look at the problems in your own back yards, and the problems you have created, before you start trying to "help" a country that didn't ask for it, all in the name of profits.

I thank you, and good night............