OP/ED pieces are junk, as are your ridiculous posts.The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"
[SIZE=-1]by Joyce Chediac[/SIZE]
Nice spin.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.
They had been ignoring resolution 660 since Aug 1990.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.
Give it a rest.
So what? There was no agreement between Iraq and the coalition.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.
And guess what, that's what matters.
I've already PROVEN they weren't out of combat.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.
I know how you love to ignore facts and reality. But it's just making your posts look silly.
No it isn't. As my last post on this topic showed clearly.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.
BS.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.
Because he was a great General.Please explain to these people why Schwarzkopf deserves your praise.
So what?The point is that on February 22, 1991 Iraq agreed to a Soviet-proposed cease-fire agreement.
Iraq was at war with the coalition, that's who they should have brokered an agreement with.
As they are allowed. I'm glad you admit that your posts have been filled with lies.While the US rejected the proposal...
You know what's funny?
You keep saying they had an agreement, when they didn't. And here you just acknowledged they did.
Your post are filled with so much dishonesty you can't even post lies consistently.
If they surrendered.they also said that retreating Iraqi forces would not be attacked.
They didn't.
From your beloved wikiality...How many tanks and fighting vehicles do you see in the de-corpsified images?
What defies commonsense are your posts that use wikiality like it was the end all, until it disproves the idiocy contained in your posts.Besides the fact that the commonly believed in North America scenario defies common sense.
I don't doubt it.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.
They were ordered out by Baghdad.
Something tells me following orders in the Iraqi army is something that you just do. The consequences being rather severe.
But I'm also pretty sure the Kuwaiti hostages offered them some false security.
Perhaps, but we'll never know, because it never happened. As you already admitted.An agreement to avoid house to house fighting made sense to both sides.
I'll believe the facts.Believe what you like about Schwarzkopf.
No it doesn't.But IMO, the evidence supports claims that he was responsible for a lot of senseless death and his word meant nothing.
The inconsistent lies and complete dishonesty contained in your posts has been thoroughly debunked.
That's why you've now turned to "No heavy weapons" and you admitted there was cease fire agreement between the US and Iraq.
You see what you want to see.I see buses, troop transports and cars in the above images.
There are hundreds of photos available on line. Including journalist testimony.Where are the tanks and other fighting vehicles?
From your beloved wikiality...
The road bottle-neck near the Mutla Ridge police station was reduced to a long uninterrupted line of more than 300 stuck and abandoned vehicles sometimes called the Mile of Death. The wreckage found on the highway consisted of at least 28 tanks and other armored vehicles with many more commandeered civilian cars and buses filled with stolen Kuwaiti property.
Only after they were strafed on highway 80.(I suspect they were abandoned as per the Soviet proposed ceasefire agreement.)
It's been well established your understanding is biased and jaded at best, dishonest and ignorant at worst.My understanding is that the US took no prisoners and showed no mercy.
Would you like examples?
As I have proven, they did not abandon their military equipment, until after they were attacked on the highway.As per the agreement, the US said they would not attack retreating Iraqis if they abandoned their tanks, artillery and other heavy weapons..
Many of the commandeered civilian vehicles were filled with stolen Kuwaiti property and Kuwaiti hostages.
You are aware that taking hostages requires...
1, The use of threat, read belligerent, also defined as combative, hence still in combat.
2, The means to execute that threat, read still armed.
3, A war crime.
Oh so now you want to narrow it to "heavy weapons". Interesting.IN all the images I've seen, I never saw any heavy weapons.
I wondered how long it would take to see posts filled with moving goal posts.
No he didn't, stop posting ignorant lies.Schwarzkopf had to have given the order to slaughter disarmed retreating soldiers.... war crime.
The US never came to an agreement, you already admitted you were lying.The evidence supports the conclusion that the US never intended to keep their word.
Iraq and the Russians did. That's great, but bares no weight on the Coalition operations.
Oh, so now it's back to your usual conjecture.Schwarzkopf must have gave the order to show no mercy and take no prisoners.... war crime.
Well I guess that's better than you saying he actually gave the order.
Again, you see what you want to see.I see no tanks, artillery pieces, armored personnel carriers...
LOL, there's that caveat again.or anything which indicates the thousands of dead were anything other than disarmed (of heavy weapons) retreating soldiers...
Even small arms means armed.
You've failed again.
Last edited: