Anti War Ppl Kiss My Ass!

["The Avatar Man"]

Originally posted by ezyryder@27 March 2003 - 11:33
by the caps I thought I should reply, I wasn't for Guerilla Warfare I was merely stating what I felt Iraq were doing when someone said something about Iraq not having any rules for war, when there should be.

sorry about the caps dude

["The Avatar Man"]

Originally posted by ketoprak@27 March 2003 - 11:32

When you defend your country, you expect that people will die.

saddam cares nothing about his people dying.
did he care about that when he fought two useless wars with Iran
or when he inveded kuwait
OR WHEN HE GASSED THEM

[ezyryder]

its ago, i thought u were agry thats all (when u used caps). Anyway, yes Sadam Hussien is a bizzare chap. Sorry to any Muslems for saying this, but I believe he became Muslem to get more support in Iraq and surrounding countries. What is weird about him, is the fact he cares not for his people or any other one. Most facist or any other sort of dictators have always done a form of genicide to help thier own race. The most common being the Ayrian (spelling wrong). Russia was similar, blonde blue eyed typed person was idolised. Anyway. Sada is a weird case, 'nuff said.

[Spindulik]

Originally posted by ketoprak@27 March 2003 - 11:32
War kills. War kills.......

Here's an idea. Let's use women and children as humand shields. The Iraqi war defense plan. Ain't that sweet. I wonder how many meetings and conferences that the Iraqi generals and leaders had, before they approved that genius plan. What kind of ball-less plan is that. Fight your enemy like a man.

The Iraq army is one huge terrorist power. A heartless gang of terrorists who will put nothing in front of them (except women and children, excuse the pun) to win a war in any inhumane way.

Trust me. If the coalition forces used women and children as a human shield, Saddam's forces wouldn't blink an eye to shoot at them.

Where are the people who protest the Iraqi defense methods? There are no "HUMAN SHIELD" protestors, but there sure are a lot of anti-war protestors.


"But oh, the Iraq army is so powerless compared to the super power. It isn't fair fighting against them with the weapons they have". BULLCRAP, there is no excuse. Iraq had a lot of money coming in and a lot of time. They could have easily afforded to buy build, educate and train their military properly and ehtically. No excuse for wasting your knowledge, money or time on trying to be deviate and criminal-like.

[Knuckles187]

there is this little thing called the Geneva Convention.. what it does is it outlines basic guidelines for war to protect the people invovled and not involved..

here is a scenario..

3 Para are moving into um qasr and they get fired upon and the 6 gunmen are dressed in civvies.. and they flee into a group of say 30 odd civilians.. now in this firefight.. the RMC's have lost 4 soldiers... so obvisouly they are going to use retaliative force.. and so if they were to fire into the crowd would they be in the wrong?


and the answer is a bit dodgy to say the least... but technically speaking they would get off scot free.. because the Enemy broke the convention by changing into civvies instead of theyre militia uniform.. therefore as they broke the treaty we cant be punished for wasting what we think is the enemy but it civilian.. those sort of things they are USA & UK troops killing civilians.. those are Iraqi's killing civilians!

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by Spindulik@27 March 2003 - 12:14
BULLCRAP, there is no excuse. Iraq had a lot of money coming in and a lot of time. They could have easily afforded to buy build, educate and train their military properly and ehtically. No excuse for wasting your knowledge, money or time on trying to be deviate and criminal-like.

You might not have heard this before, but since the last Golf War they were not allowed to import any more weapons.

I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say: They should simply go out in the open and get killed by a merciless superior enemy with great honour? So it is honourable to get killed, and honourable to give up, but not trying to fight with what they have?

You should analyze past wars and resistence movements - they have done pretty much the same, putting their own civilians at risk.

I don't really know why people think that it is clean and proper warfare to strike an enemy from the air when they have literally no means of defending themselves against it.

I think the war you are going to face after the removal of the current regime is going to be even more atrocious and more difficult to comprehend, if your president really insists on a military occupation, for this is bound to create terrorism (and not only from former Saddam supporters).

This is not a game, and the Iraqis are no spoil-sports, they are trying to fight an enemy they haven't attacked in the first place. How many of those which are killed now really are "dead-enders" and how much are people trying to defend their country no-one can tell.

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 11:42
saddam cares nothing about his people dying.
did he care about that when he fought two useless wars with Iran
or when he inveded kuwait
OR WHEN HE GASSED THEM

I agree. He is a ruthless and dangerous dictator trying to keep his power, but there are more and more Iraqi people who rather have a local dictator than a foreign invader. (Read the news about expatriates returning to fight).

The two useless wars against Iran were backed and supported by your government, in order to keep Iran occupied, which was perceived to be even more dangerous at that time.

I think the US missed the chance to remove him honourably by supporting the uprising in 1991.

I would have supported it then, and I might even have supported a war now if it was backed by the UN (I'm not sure).

["The Avatar Man"]

Originally posted by puremindmatters@27 March 2003 - 12:50


I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say: They should simply go out in the open and get killed by a merciless superior enemy with great honour? So it is honourable to get killed, and honourable to give up, but not trying to fight with what they have?

They should have disarmed.

["The Avatar Man"]

Originally posted by puremindmatters@27 March 2003 - 12:50

You should analyze past wars and resistence movements - they have done pretty much the same, putting their own civilians at risk.

this does not make it right!

["The Avatar Man"]

but there are more and more Iraqi people who rather have a local dictator than a foreign invader.  (Read the news about expatriates returning to fight).

they only look at the us as a foreign invader because all they watch is iraqui tv.