Leaving Kuwait.
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
A mod banned me from posting my opinion or debating a de-corpsefied version of history regarding an American war criminal... I didn't know about a 30 day rule before criticizing a mass murdering war criminals.
I have no problem respecting this forum's mods as the final authority on this forum's content.
I also don't have a problem respecting the rules, provided they are posted or I am told. I checked the forum rules to see if the thirty day ban applies to all war criminal mass murderers or just ours? I'm still not really clear as I pissed on OBL's grave repeatedly before the 30 days on this forum. So did many other forum users without problems with any mods.... In the future I will ask a moderator's opinion before criticizing someone so soon after their death or wait for a moderator to give a green light by pissing first
... but suffice to say I have no intention posting in the other thread, but IMO, moderators should not let their personal opinions of forum regulars or their opinions cloiud their judgement regarding forum rule enforcement.
Here is what I posted in the other thread:
The point is that on February 22, 1991 Iraq agreed to a Soviet-proposed cease-fire agreement. While the US rejected the proposal, they also said that retreating Iraqi forces would not be attacked. On February 26 Iraqi forces left the relative security of Kuwait City to cross the open desert, believing that the US would keep their word.
How many tanks and fighting vehicles do you see in the de-corpsified images? I see lots of vehicles designed for moving people, not many that appear designed for fighting.
The Highway of Death
Officially known as Highway 80, the Highway of Death runs from Kuwait City to Basra in Iraq. During the Gulf War (1991), it became the scene of one of the most haunting images of the war.
On the night of February 26-27, 1991, Iraqi military personnel and civilians retreating from Kuwait were attacked and destroyed by American aircraft and ground forces during the United Nations Coalition offensive. The use of force was disproportionate, and the retreating forces included hostages and refugees. The scenes of carnage on the road were seen by the international community as a turkey shoot (Elaine Sciolino, the New York Times) and led to the war’s quick end subsequently.
The Highway of Death « Iconic Photos
On February 25, 1991, the Iraqi occupiers began a mass retreat from Kuwait City. Their convey was trapped near Mutla Ridge on Jahra Road and pounded by coalition air strikes. The city of Jahra is in the background.
Kuwait Invasion: The Evidence - Highway of Death
Besides the fact that the commonly believed in North America scenario defies common sense. I doubt Iraqi soldiers would leave fortified positions in the middle of a city to cross open desert if they believed they would be attacked. An agreement to avoid house to house fighting made sense to both sides. But once Iraq's forces cleared the city, a mass slaughter served American interests.
Believe what you like about Schwarzkopf. But IMO, the evidence supports claims that he was responsible for a lot of senseless death and his word meant nothing.
RTS,
If I understand the February 24th Soviet brokered agreement, two days before the Highway of Death incident, required Iraqi forces to abandon their heavy weapons (tanks, artillery..) and return to Iraq in a retreat of shame disarmed. The Iraqis understood tanks would be fair game, but troops would be spared... in exchange, the Iraqis agreed not to force the US to level Kuwait City by fighting to the last man from fortified positions in urban areas. The US would also have encountered higher casualties fighting through the rubble. So they had an agreement and the Iraqis started to retreat.
Instead of allowing the Iraqi forces to retreat to Iraq, the US forces waited until the last Iraqis left Kuwait City. Then they slaughtered every living soul, not only killing seasoned Iraqi soldiers, but also thousands of young conscripts who hated Hussein, but had no choice but to fight for their country, Kuwaiti civilians (collaborators) and hundreds of hostages. Many of the people the US killed were not that different from the people who rebelled against Hussein a year later after the US dropped millions of flyers and months of broadcasts promising to support a popular rebellion... When the people of southern Iraq revolted, the US broke its word and stood on the sidelines as Hussein's attack helicopters slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
BTW, I am not trying to defend what Hussein did or how Iraqi forces behaved, only voice my opinion regarding what I believe to be the truth. War crimes were committed by both sides in that war. Many war crimes that many Canadians believe Iraqis committed are known fabrications. For example:
Incubator Lie war correspondent propaganda PR goebbels gulf usa
And the ones committed by our side's war criminals were whitewashed. The Highway of Death is an example
CB posted images destroyed tanks. I agree that heavy artillery like tanks were fair game. Images of destroyed tank columns do not indicate war crimes.
However, troop transports move soldiers. They are not heavy weapons Neither are cars, buses, empty trucks...
You should have read the world's news at the time it happened. You might have gotten more than one version of the truth.War crime? I always thought that lighting oil fields on fire while retreating was a war crime. Or waving the white flag then gunning down the officer coming forward to take your surrender was a war crime. I could start dragging out statistics and graphs, but the heck with it.
Norman Schwarrtzkopf was a patriot, a soldier and a leader. May he rest in peace,
Recommended reading: IT DOESN'T TAKE A HERO
to
I don't disagree. The idea of using bulldozers to bury about 30,000 Iraqi soldiers in their trenches after they'd been bombed around the clock for several weeks was a brilliant use of overwhelming force... and not a war crime.
I come here to debate. Stirring the pot in a forum rule respecting way isn't just within forum rules, its also what makes this place interesting. If you don't like my posts, please put me on ignore. I agree with you regarding rude, and snide statements. I also post what I would say publicly.
BTW, would you please explain why you don't have a problem with any of posts in this thread except RiR? As far as I can tell only RiR's post is the only one which shouldn't be offensive to you based on what you wrote.
So is your problem really how I express my opinion? I think you don't like my opinion. Please feel free to express your disagreement with me while respecting forum rules...
Last edited:
All the lies regarding the Iraqi retreat contained in your post have been proven to be just that, lies. Even if you ignore my posts.
At this point, continuing to post them is a violation of the forums rules and just an exercise in making silly posts.
At this point, continuing to post them is a violation of the forums rules and just an exercise in making silly posts.
Last edited:
A mod banned me from posting my opinion or debating a de-corpsefied version of history regarding an American war criminal... I didn't know about a 30 day rule before criticizing a mass murdering war criminals.
I have no problem respecting this forum's mods as the final authority on this forum's content.
I also don't have a problem respecting the rules, provided they are posted or I am told. I checked the forum rules to see if the thirty day ban applies to all war criminal mass murderers or just ours? I'm still not really clear as I pissed on OBL's grave repeatedly before the 30 days on this forum. So did many other forum users without problems with any mods.... In the future I will ask a moderator's opinion before criticizing someone so soon after their death or wait for a moderator to give a green light by pissing first
... but suffice to say I have no intention posting in the other thread, but IMO, moderators should not let their personal opinions of forum regulars or their opinions cloiud their judgement regarding forum rule enforcement.
Here is what I posted in the other thread:
The point is that on February 22, 1991 Iraq agreed to a Soviet-proposed cease-fire agreement. While the US rejected the proposal, they also said that retreating Iraqi forces would not be attacked. On February 26 Iraqi forces left the relative security of Kuwait City to cross the open desert, believing that the US would keep their word.
How many tanks and fighting vehicles do you see in the de-corpsified images? I see lots of vehicles designed for moving people, not many that appear designed for fighting.
The Highway of Death
Officially known as Highway 80, the Highway of Death runs from Kuwait City to Basra in Iraq. During the Gulf War (1991), it became the scene of one of the most haunting images of the war.
On the night of February 26-27, 1991, Iraqi military personnel and civilians retreating from Kuwait were attacked and destroyed by American aircraft and ground forces during the United Nations Coalition offensive. The use of force was disproportionate, and the retreating forces included hostages and refugees. The scenes of carnage on the road were seen by the international community as a turkey shoot (Elaine Sciolino, the New York Times) and led to the war’s quick end subsequently.
The Highway of Death « Iconic Photos
Highway of Death
On February 25, 1991, the Iraqi occupiers began a mass retreat from Kuwait City. Their convey was trapped near Mutla Ridge on Jahra Road and pounded by coalition air strikes. The city of Jahra is in the background.
Kuwait Invasion: The Evidence - Highway of Death
Besides the fact that the commonly believed in North America scenario defies common sense. I doubt Iraqi soldiers would leave fortified positions in the middle of a city to cross open desert if they believed they would be attacked. An agreement to avoid house to house fighting made sense to both sides. But once Iraq's forces cleared the city, a mass slaughter served American interests.
Believe what you like about Schwarzkopf. But IMO, the evidence supports claims that he was responsible for a lot of senseless death and his word meant nothing.
RTS,
If I understand the February 24th Soviet brokered agreement, two days before the Highway of Death incident, required Iraqi forces to abandon their heavy weapons (tanks, artillery..) and return to Iraq in a retreat of shame disarmed. The Iraqis understood tanks would be fair game, but troops would be spared... in exchange, the Iraqis agreed not to force the US to level Kuwait City by fighting to the last man from fortified positions in urban areas. The US would also have encountered higher casualties fighting through the rubble. So they had an agreement and the Iraqis started to retreat.
Instead of allowing the Iraqi forces to retreat to Iraq, the US forces waited until the last Iraqis left Kuwait City. Then they slaughtered every living soul, not only killing seasoned Iraqi soldiers, but also thousands of young conscripts who hated Hussein, but had no choice but to fight for their country, Kuwaiti civilians (collaborators) and hundreds of hostages. Many of the people the US killed were not that different from the people who rebelled against Hussein a year later after the US dropped millions of flyers and months of broadcasts promising to support a popular rebellion... When the people of southern Iraq revolted, the US broke its word and stood on the sidelines as Hussein's attack helicopters slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
BTW, I am not trying to defend what Hussein did or how Iraqi forces behaved, only voice my opinion regarding what I believe to be the truth. War crimes were committed by both sides in that war. Many war crimes that many Canadians believe Iraqis committed are known fabrications. For example:
Incubator Lie war correspondent propaganda PR goebbels gulf usa
And the ones committed by our side's war criminals were whitewashed. The Highway of Death is an example
CB posted images destroyed tanks. I agree that heavy artillery like tanks were fair game. Images of destroyed tank columns do not indicate war crimes.
However, troop transports move soldiers. They are not heavy weapons Neither are cars, buses, empty trucks...
You should have read the world's news at the time it happened. You might have gotten more than one version of the truth.
to
I don't disagree. The idea of using bulldozers to bury about 30,000 Iraqi soldiers in their trenches after they'd been bombed around the clock for several weeks was a brilliant use of overwhelming force... and not a war crime.
I come here to debate. Stirring the pot in a forum rule respecting way isn't just within forum rules, its also what makes this place interesting. If you don't like my posts, please put me on ignore. I agree with you regarding rude, and snide statements. I also post what I would say publicly.
BTW, would you please explain why you don't have a problem with any of posts in this thread except RiR? As far as I can tell only RiR's post is the only one which shouldn't be offensive to you based on what you wrote.
So is your problem really how I express my opinion? I think you don't like my opinion. Please feel free to express your disagreement with me while respecting forum rules...
Right on, Mark.
errr I mean BUMP
Didja have to quote the whole thing..........I didn't even read that less than original repost from the other thread
I posted the whole thing to illustrate the effectiveness and wisdom of Mark's post.Didja have to quote the whole thing..........I didn't even read that less than original repost from the other thread
I should have quoted it too.
That way we could all laugh at EAO's creative edit.
Gawd bless caches...
That way we could all laugh at EAO's creative edit.
Gawd bless caches...
Look closely at the images above and you will not see a single tank or artillery.
Iraqi did not invade Kuwait in convoys of cars, trucks, and buses. They occupied Kuwait with tanks and artillery. Yet for some reason, they abandoned all their heavy weapons to form up in large disarmed convoys and attempt to crossed the open desert back to Iraq??????
The only scenario which fits the evidence is that the US agreed they would spare the lives of disarmed retreating Iraqi soldiers and then as soon as they cleared Kuwait City, the US broke their word and slaughtered tens of thousands of retreating soldiers.
Morally its the same as telling someone you'll spare their life if they lower their weapon and then shoot them as soon as they comply.
I am not defending Hussein or other Iraqi war criminals. I'm also not sugar coating the ugly truth about mass murderer war criminal General Norman Schwarzkopf.
I am well aware that some Iraqi soldiers committed atrocities. But most Iraqi soldiers that died in those convoys were young involuntary conscripts... many as young as 18 or 19 years old. They were barely men and probably scared $hitless. Schwarzkopf offered to spare their lives and then gave orders which resulted in few prisoners and no mercy.
Schwarzkopf was a cold blooded killer and this war crime wasn't his worst offense.
Iraqi did not invade Kuwait in convoys of cars, trucks, and buses. They occupied Kuwait with tanks and artillery. Yet for some reason, they abandoned all their heavy weapons to form up in large disarmed convoys and attempt to crossed the open desert back to Iraq??????
The only scenario which fits the evidence is that the US agreed they would spare the lives of disarmed retreating Iraqi soldiers and then as soon as they cleared Kuwait City, the US broke their word and slaughtered tens of thousands of retreating soldiers.
Morally its the same as telling someone you'll spare their life if they lower their weapon and then shoot them as soon as they comply.
I am not defending Hussein or other Iraqi war criminals. I'm also not sugar coating the ugly truth about mass murderer war criminal General Norman Schwarzkopf.
I am well aware that some Iraqi soldiers committed atrocities. But most Iraqi soldiers that died in those convoys were young involuntary conscripts... many as young as 18 or 19 years old. They were barely men and probably scared $hitless. Schwarzkopf offered to spare their lives and then gave orders which resulted in few prisoners and no mercy.
Schwarzkopf was a cold blooded killer and this war crime wasn't his worst offense.
I remember this like it was yesterday its called war and when you have the enemy
trapped and your at war you take out as many as one can its not a chess game its
war.
The seocnd world war was a hell of a lot worse than this especially when the Germans
were retreating on both the eastern front, and the west at the faleies gap.
What do people not understand war is mass murder of sorts as both sides are intent on
killing each other in total war.
Yes it is deplorable but it is reality and war is hell is that not the syaing?
trapped and your at war you take out as many as one can its not a chess game its
war.
The seocnd world war was a hell of a lot worse than this especially when the Germans
were retreating on both the eastern front, and the west at the faleies gap.
What do people not understand war is mass murder of sorts as both sides are intent on
killing each other in total war.
Yes it is deplorable but it is reality and war is hell is that not the syaing?
Is that the whole length of the highway that came under fire?
No.
But please don't let that stop you from thinking it is, it's incredibly funny.
No they didn't. It was destroyed somewhere else on the highway.
They said there was an accident on the 404 yesterday. I was on the 404 between Newmarket and Aurora, I didn't see the accident, so they must have been lying... :roll:
The rest of the dishonest make believe in your post wasn't worth even responding to.
I agree that Iraqi forces were trapped when they were in Kuwait City. But the point I am raising is how tens of thousands Iraqi soldiers found themselves in disarmed convoys in the open desert?
I'm not a military person, but it seems to me Iraqi forces would have had a better chance if they stayed in Kuwait City. Attempting to cross open desert without air support would be suicide. The only way they could possibly have attempted a suicidal maneuver would be if they believed US led forces had agreed not to attack retreating and disarmed Iraqi forces. The only way Iraqi forces could have been destroyed in that manner is if US leaders made a retreat agreement under the guise of sparing Kuwait City and then broke their word.
What happened in the final days of the Gulf War?
BY SEYMOUR HERSH
... The accounts of these men, taken together, suggest that McCaffrey's offensive, two days into a ceasefire, was not so much a counterattack provoked by enemy fire as a systematic destruction of Iraqis who were generally fulfilling the requirements of the retreat; most of the Iraqi tanks travelled from the battlefield with their cannons reversed and secured, in a position known as travel-lock. According to these witnesses, the 24th faced little determined Iraqi resistance at any point during the war or its aftermath; ...
Overwhelming Force
Wouldn't it have been awesome if they were fighting the Soviets!
Another lie... the US said Iraqi forces can surrender... not retreat.
They should have been surrendering to the Coalition and not trying to save what they looted.
Yup... and bombing vehicles during war is acceptable.
YOU LOSE!
They can believe what they want... but they were wrong to believe such a foolish thing.
So stupid... you think thousands of Iraqi Soldiers drove in on tanks and artillery? LMAO
A figment of your imagination.
Ahhh haaaaa... he WON. THAT is what got you mad.
They weren't disarmed. You even admit that when you acknowledge they were driving tanks.
Ya, but they had hostages, (so you should keep defending them with lie filled posts) they hoped would protect them.
100% conjecture, based on lies and mangled quotes.
I already posted the offer the US made. The Iraqi's didn't live up to it.
Generally? Most of?
Fail.
The offer made was for complete disarmament, and/or surrender.
Thanks for proving yourself wrong, yet again.
You sound like a war-mongering idiot Bear. Supporting using a bulldozer to bury dead troops in mass graves? Supporting bombing columns of troops in full retreat? You may be able to justify these things with bullsh*t technicalities but on a moral & ethical level you fail miserably and show yourself as a loser. Of course your fanatical attacks on EAO and the opinions put forward don't make you look like anything but a crazed lunatic either.Even when RiR hinted you might want to stop you didn't. As Bugs Bunny would say...."what a maroon!"
Last edited:
And people here get bent out of shape, hysterical and offended when Teddy insults someone? :lol:
Oh, and what is "very dead troops"?
To you, no doubt. You aren't very bright, so it comes as no surprise.
I said that?
Common military tactic, with many examples of its use.
Again, to you, but you just aren't very bright.
I already know they don't, not that I attacked EAO, fanatically or otherwise. If you were at all bright enough, you would have noted that I attacked the lies in his posts.
Because I'm not breaking forum rules, like you are, lol. He just thought I was trolling. Even though he's considerably brighter than you, he was also wrong.
Yes you are.
Last edited: