As per the agreement, the US said they would not attack retreating Iraqis if they abandoned their tanks, artillery and other heavy weapons.. That's how they convinced the Iraqis to leave the cities avoiding house to house fighting, which would have resulted in a lot of dead civilians. Look at the images again and tell me if you see any heavy weapons. IN all the images I've seen, I never saw any heavy weapons. Schwarzkopf had to have given the order to slaughter disarmed retreating soldiers.... war crime.Funny are we looking at the same picture? I see troop carrying vehicles....
The evidence supports the conclusion that the US never intended to keep their word. Schwarzkopf must have gave the order to show no mercy and take no prisoners.... war crime.
How exactly do troops retreat across a barren desert without using buses, troops transports and cars??? I see no tanks, artillery pieces, armored personnel carriers... or anything which indicates the thousands of dead were anything other than disarmed (of heavy weapons) retreating soldiers... most of whom were young involuntary conscripts, similar to the people who participated in a revolt against Hussein less than a year later.... The one General Schwarzkopf promised to support as per millions of leaflets dropped over Iraq and months of radio broadcasts into Iraq and then didn't.
Seventy-eight doesn't really seem that old to me, to be honest!8O
I cut the rest of your post, as it didn't say anything I cared to read.
I truly hope that you don't decide to "piss on my grave" when I pass on, as I am sure that people that cared about me would find it disrespectful...
1) I never heard of this rule
Canadian Content Forums -
2) It is my opinion that General Schwazkopf is a mass murdering war criminal, who broke his word on multiple occasions when it suited him and as a result tens of thousands of people died needlessly.
So if I understand your point, its that if you think someone is a mass murderer, you can't make a negative post about them with references to evidence supporting your viewpoint for thirty days after they are dead?
ie> Does this unlisted rule I never heard of before apply to everyone who pisses on anyone's grave, or do the rules only apply when the grave is someone the mods like and not to people the mods don't like.. for example would the mods give someone a timeout for pissing on OBL's grave? If so I also plead guilty to pissing on that war criminal mass murderer's grave in less than 30 days after their death too.
Or does this new rule mean that we have to ask a moderator's opinion first about a mass murderer to find out whether they like the dead person or not before I can call them a mass murderer?
3) My posts are on topic and my opinions are backed up by references and evidence. So far not a single person who disagrees with me or gave me a thumbs down can make the same claim.
Last edited: