 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
True - I'm sure they'd prefer to stay there although maybe not given the winter is coming and feeding one million people would be no easy task. |
I doubt that's how they think. Probably are more like Somalis or Apaches who make sure the fighting men have enough to eat and see civilians as a resource first, responsibility second. (That's the way guerillas have to operate.)
Last edited by TCO on 14-11-2001 at 06:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
 |
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
I think it was an allusion to the "Highway of Death". We are justified to fire on retreating troops. There's a difference between retreating and surrendering. Oh and I guess it's ok if we kill volunteers but bad to kill conscripts? Or what was the point of saying "conscripts"?  |
They were running away, they were broken, routed, demoralised - they had ceased to be an effective fighting force!
Tens of thousands were MURDERED 
quote:
The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"
by Joyce Chediac
I want to give testimony on what are called the "highways of death." These are the two Kuwaiti roadways, littered with remains of 2,000 mangled Iraqi military vehicles, and the charred and dismembered bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, who were withdrawing from Kuwait on February 26th and 27th 1991 in compliance with UN resolutions.
U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours. "It was like shooting fish in a barrel," said one U.S. pilot. The horror is still there to see.
On the inland highway to Basra is mile after mile of burned, smashed, shattered vehicles of every description - tanks, armored cars, trucks, autos, fire trucks, according to the March 18, 1991, Time magazine. On the sixty miles of coastal highway, Iraqi military units sit in gruesome repose, scorched skeletons of vehicles and men alike, black and awful under the sun, says the Los Angeles Times of March 11, 1991. While 450 people survived the inland road bombing to surrender, this was not the case with the 60 miles of the coastal road. There for 60 miles every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground, and it's impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away, and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel.
"Even in Vietnam I didn't see anything like this. It's pathetic," said Major Bob Nugent, an Army intelligence officer. This one-sided carnage, this racist mass murder of Arab people, occurred while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater promised that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait. This is surely one of the most heinous war crimes in contemporary history.
The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660. President Bush responded immediately from the White House saying (through spokesman Marlin Fitzwater) that "there was no evidence to suggest the Iraqi army is withdrawing. In fact, Iraqi units are continuing to fight. . . We continue to prosecute the war." On the next day, February 26, 1991, Saddam Hussein announced on Baghdad radio that Iraqi troops had, indeed, begun to withdraw from Kuwait and that the withdrawal would be complete that day. Again, Bush reacted, calling Hussein's announcement "an outrage" and "a cruel hoax."
Eyewitness Kuwaitis attest that the withdrawal began the afternoon of February 26, 1991 and Baghdad radio announced at 2:00 AM (local time) that morning that the government had ordered all troops to withdraw.
The massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat. The point of contention involves the Bush administration's claim that the Iraqi troops were retreating to regroup and fight again. Such a claim is the only way that the massacre which occurred could be considered legal under international law. But in fact the claim is false and obviously so. The troops were withdrawing and removing themselves from combat under direct orders from Baghdad that the war was over and that Iraq had quit and would fully comply with UN resolutions. To attack the soldiers returning home under these circumstances is a war crime.
Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. The 1907 Hague Convention governing land warfare also makes it illegal to declare that no quarter will be given to withdrawing soldiers. On February 26,199 I, the following dispatch was filed from the deck of the U.S.S. Ranger, under the byline of Randall Richard of the Providence Journal:
Air strikes against Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait were being launched so feverishly from this carrier today that pilots said they took whatever bombs happened to be closest to the flight deck. The crews, working to the strains of the Lone Ranger theme, often passed up the projectile of choice . . . because it took too long to load.
New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd wrote, "With the Iraqi leader facing military defeat, Mr. Bush decided that he would rather gamble on a violent and potentially unpopular ground war than risk the alternative: an imperfect settlement hammered out by the Soviets and Iraqis that world opinion might accept as tolerable." In short, rather than accept the offer of Iraq to surrender and leave the field of battle, Bush and the U.S. military strategists decided simply to kill as many Iraqis as they possibly could while the chance lasted. A Newsweek article on Norman Schwarzkopt, titled "A Soldier of Conscience" (March 11,1991), remarked that before the ground war the general was only worried about "How long the world would stand by and watch the United States pound the living hell out of Iraq without saying, 'Wait a minute - enough is enough.' He [Schwarzkopf] itched to send ground troops to finish the job." The pretext for massive extermination of Iraqi soldiers was the desire of the U.S. to destroy Iraqi equipment. But in reality the plan was to prevent Iraqi soldiers from retreating at all. Powell remarked even before the start of the war that Iraqi soldiers knew that they had been sent to Kuwait to die. Rick Atkinson of the Washington Post reasoned that "the noose has been tightened" around Iraqi forces so effectively that "escape is impossible" (February 27, 1991). What all of this amounts to is not a war but a massacre.
There are also indications that some of those bombed during the withdrawl were Palestinians and Iraqi civilians. According to Time magazine of March 18, 1991, not just military vehicles, but cars, buses and trucks were also hit. In many cases, cars were loaded with Palestinian families and all their possessions. U.S. press accounts tried to make the discovery of burned and bombed household goods appear as if Iraqi troops were even at this late moment looting Kuwait. Attacks on civilians are specifically prohibited by the Geneva Accords and the 1977 Conventions.
How did it really happen? On February 26, 1991 Iraq had announced it was complying with the Soviet proposal, and its troops would withdraw from Kuwait. According to Kuwaiti eyewitnesses, quoted in the March 11, 1991 Washington Post, the withdrawal began on the two highways, and was in full swing by evening. Near midnight, the first U.S. bombing started. Hundreds of Iraqis jumped from their cars and their trucks, looking for shelter. U.S. pilots took whatever bombs happened to be close to the flight deck, from cluster bombs to 500 pound bombs. Can you imagine that on a car or truck? U.S. forces continued to drop bombs on the convoys until all humans were killed. So many jets swarmed over the inland road that it created an aerial traffic jam, and combat air controllers feared midair collisions.
The victims were not offering resistance. They weren't being driven back in fierce battle, or trying to regroup to join another battle. They were just sitting ducks, according to Commander Frank Swiggert, the Ranger Bomb Squadron leader. According to an article in the March 11, 1991 Washington Post, headlined "U.S. Scrambles to Shape View of Highway of Death," the U.S. government then conspired and in fact did all it could to hide this war crime from the people of this country and the world. What the U.S. government did became the focus of the public relations campaign managed by the U.S. Central Command in Riyad, according to that same issue of the Washington Post. The typical line has been that the convoys were engaged in "classic tank battles," as if to suggest that Iraqi troops tried to fight back or even had a chance of fighting back. The truth is that it was simply a one-sided massacre of tens of thousands of people who had no ability to fight back or defend themselves.
The Washington Post says that senior officers with the U.S. Central Command in Riyad became worried that what they saw was a growing public perception that Iraqi forces were leaving Kuwait voluntarily, and that the U.S. pilots were bombing them mercilessly, which was the truth. So the U.S. government, says the Post, played down the evidence that Iraqi troops were actually leaving Kuwait.
U.S. field commanders gave the media a carefully drawn and inaccurate picture of the fast-changing events. The idea was to portray Iraq's claimed withdrawal as a fighting retreat made necessary by heavy allied military pressure. Remember when Bush came to the Rose Garden and said that he would not accept Saddam Hussein's withdrawal? That was part of it, too, and Bush was involved in this cover up. Bush's statement was followed quickly by a televised military briefing from Saudi Arabia to explain that Iraqi forces were not withdrawing but were being pushed from the battlefield. In fact, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers around Kuwait had begun to pull away more than thirty-six hours before allied forces reached the capital, Kuwait City. They did not move under any immediate pressure from allied tanks and infantry, which were still miles from Kuwait City.
This deliberate campaign of disinformation regarding this military action and the war crime that it really was, this manipulation of press briefings to deceive the public and keep the massacre from the world is also a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right of the people to know. |
Apparently GP thinks it's OK to be a murderous bastard!
War Crimes like these are the reason the US refuses to sign the international War Criminals agreement - if they did, half the US airforce and people right up the chain of command to the President would be indicted!
As for the conscripts comment, well the overwhelming majority of the conscripts were Shi'ites and therefore potential enemies of Saddam (that's why they were always used as cannon fodder!), so ironically all the US was really doing was helping Saddam retain power...
Personally I think the only reason the Taliban weren't hit as they fled is that they took those 8 hostages with them, two of which being Americans...
BTW, here's a pic of the aftermath of the Highway of Death - please could someone point out to me just one military vehicle in that mass of charred remains...
 Attachment: highway.jpg
This has been downloaded 89 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Spin
|
|
Sorry dude. Kicking the crap out of a retreating army is not a 'war crime'.
quote:
They were running away, they were broken, routed, demoralised - they had ceased to be an effective fighting force! |
Had they surrendered, they would be alive.
Just wait until winter. Freezing Taliban hiding in the mountains, afraid to light up a furnace... hello Mr Heatseeker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Spin
|
|
quote:
I always find the American faith in technology touching |
It's not a faith, it's a prediction.
Besides... the bombs are already paid for, and they DO have a shelf life...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thue
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
well lets just get OBL and get the hell out.... |
Both american forces killing him and american forces holding him prisoner would give an outroar in the muslim world.
Enraged muslim afghans executing him in anger on the other hand would be a perfect solution for USA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
One thing that always puzzled me about the Highway of death was why would the Iraqi's stay with their vehicles? Surely most of em escaped on foot? If you followed the road by walking parallel at about 500 metres you should be okay. |
The road was passing through minefields. Some tried to flee through the minefields and were killed too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
|
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Mobius,
That article is complete rubbish.
This one line pretty much shows how much bullsh1t it's throwing out there:
yeah right. The whole f ucking deal was on the news here constantly. Reporters were even there on site. They told us everything that happened. They showed the convoy being destroyed and the aftermath and the bodies. |
So the whole document is rubbish because you can find fault with less than 3% of it?
Maybe 'racist' was a little strong - but murder most definitely isn't!
No go Derek - I'd like to see you disprove the more salient points, like the fact that Saddam had announced he was withdrawing his forces in complaince with the US resolution, the fact that this operation occurred on the eve of the cessation of hostilities, the fact that thousands of defenceless people were murdered, or that the US continued to pound them into dust until every vehicle had been destroyed - this wasn't just destruction, it was total annihilation!
quote:
There was no "hiding" going on here. |
That's supposed to make it better!?!?
quote:
Also----> The most benevolent Sadaam Hussein withdrew these forces to stop fighting? Bullsh1t. Nobody knew at that time whether the coalition was going all the way to Baghdad or not. This was CLEARLY a strategic withdrawal. |
Who gives a flying rat's arse about what Saddam thinks? That most of the troops were conscripts means they didn't even want to be there in the first place! To a large degree they were innocent pawns! If you want to get someone, get the leader - get Saddam! You cut off the head!
quote:
By the way, if they were really so "peaceful," why did they take their tanks with them? |
Well not all of them did, did they? Besides, a tank is a form of transport that affords a little protection - perhaps they felt safer in a tank than a car? Besides, they would have probably faced a court martial on their return for the abandonment of equipment - or desertion!
quote:
Holy f ucking sh1t, you and chegitz would have us believe Sadaam Hussein is the next Mother Theresa. |
Where did I ever say that!!?
Let's just say that Saddam lost his monopoly on atrocities when the US committed it's wholesale slaughter...
Can you blame your protege for his crimes? After all, it was the US that built him up and supported him! Saddam is America's creation in the same way the OBL is - now they coming home to roost!
quote:
Also, let's not forget the story about one raid on the highway, where several dozen Apaches descended on the convoy. The battle group actually hovered above the convoy and gave the guys time to get out of their vehicles and clear the area before opening fire. |
One raid!?!?! Of hundreds!!! Well that's jolly nice of those 36-60 Apaches (Spell OVERKILL!), what about the B-52s, F-16's, Tomahawk missiles - everything else? Is a tomahawk actually programmed to fly about a bit to give people time to escape? Is there a guy in the B52 with binoculars waiting to see that everyone's left their vehicles...
I'd like to see that link please!
quote:
Horrible article, has lots of sources, but they are taken out of context and skewed. |
It has LOTS of sources that you haven't questioned - you know the important ones - until you question those legitimate sources I can't take your accusations seriously...
quote:
Mobius, you're clueless. Some kind of anti-military/anti-US bias has blinded you |
Same with you, GP. So I'm clueless, why? Are you telling me that the Highway of Death didn't happen in the manner that it did, on the eve of the end of the war?
It's no good saying someone is clueless, unless you give good reason for your allegations...
quote:
GP:
I'm guessing MOBIUS would have been opposed to the bombing of withdrawing German forces in '44 at Falaise-Argentan... |
No - for several reasons.
#1 The highway to Death occurred on the last two days of the war! Instead of with almost a year to go. The Germans were a professional force committed to continuing their fight, whereas the Iraqis were conscripts withdrawing in accordance with Coalition and UN demands!
#2 The German forces were in continuous contact with Allied forces - The Iraqis were on a desert road miles from the nearest allied ground unit (perhaps why they couldn't surrender! ). Therefore the Germans were still a threat to allied lives in a very big way!
#3 The Germans were technologically capable of shooting down allied warplanes - the Iraqis were not! Therefore the Germans were still a threat to allied lives in a very big way!
No, not Falaise - but maybe Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki!
quote:
In the article you posted there were several mentions of military vehicles, including "tanks and armored cars"! |
Yes there were Mindseye, but obviously not in the huge numbers the Americans are claiming in their attempts to justify their attack - otherwise the picture would show a higher incidence of military vehicles...
It was an unnecessary turkey shoot - murder!
Actions such as these IMO actually cost the US their ultimate prize of getting Saddam - without these atrocities, the US would have had longer to get Saddam before world opinion turned against them...
Here's the Gulf War Timeline
quote:
Day 42: Tuesday, Feb. 26
Brig. Gen. Richard Neal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, says Iraqi forces are in "full retreat" with allied forces pursuing; Iraqi POWs number 30,000-plus, number to climb to 63,000.
Saddam Hussein announces Iraqi occupation forces will withdraw completely.
Residents of Kuwait City celebrate end to occupation. Resistance groups set up headquarters to control city.
U.S. Marine in Kuwait City says U.S. Embassy is back under U.S. control.
Day 43: Wednesday, Feb. 27
Kuwaiti troops raise emirate's flag in Kuwait City.
President Bush declares suspension of offensive combat and lays out conditions for permanent cease-fire. |
So you see, this strike was unnecessary because the allies knew the reason for the withdrawal!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
Mobius you are seriously unbalanced. Rather than focus on the issue at hand, namely that the Allied strategy seems to be working and will save hundreds or thousands of times more lives by providing relief through recently liberated territory than were taken by American bombs you can't even take a breath before launching into another anti-American diatribe about the Gulf War. The article you quote was total crap, but you can't even leave a bunch of lies alone, you have to embellish from the thousands quoted by the article to tens of thousands ad nauseum. You are seriously emotionally disturbed, and all of your whining about humanitarian concerns is in fact a smokescreen for your hatred.
There are a lot of real eyewitness accounts of the highway of death story, (on one of which they found only 200 bodies on, a story corroborated by the origional Apache pilot who smoked vehicles on both ends of the convoy, and while waiting for reinforcements watched as the Iraqis abandoned the convoy and set off cross country on foot). Body counts support AH's assertion that the wise choice was to abandon the trapped convoy rather than wait around like a moron to be killed. But I won't bother looking up what ever links I can find online, because you won't let the facts or even an opposing viewpoint keep you from posting a mile long emoticon laden hate post. Spare us all.
Barely better is AH, who seems more upset that he is well on his way to losing his bet with MtG than he is about potential allied casualties if half of what he says turns out to be true. Fortunately he is as wrong about Afghanistan as he is ruthlessly self-centered. Guerrillas may thrive where they are loved, and survive where they are feared, but they die where they are neither loved nor feared, and that is the situation in a vast majority of Afghanistan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lefty Scaevola
|
 |
San Antonio TX USA
Oct 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
Its warfare. It is lawful and expected to kill the enemy forces. You kill them when they are strong, when they are weak, when they are dug in, when they are in the open, when they are advancing, when they are standing still, when the are retreating. You kill them until eitheri they surrender or there is an cease fire. It the actual event here they were granted too much mercy, Bush having decleared a unitlateral cease fire when Hussein still had enough forces to conduct genocidal operations against Shites in the south and Kurds in the north. With better foresight, who should have killed tens of thousands more Iraqi forces, obliterating Husseins forces so that he would have to depend on coaliton forces to maintain a central goverment control over the Iraq countryside, with either a negotiated settlement as to Iraqs political future, or Hussein isolated in Bagdad and the Baath party strongholds. More dead Iraqi forces then would make for a much world, including for most Iraqis, today. To use the term "murder" is not mere hyperbole, it is a LIE.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2001 05:29
|
|
