The Iraq Thread

[Frisbee 0]

Next to the civilian vehicles,as brgnorway said,at least some,maybe even most of the tanks were on their flatbeds.

And using incendiary and antipersonnel bombs has been outlawed,but they had clearly been used there,one of the points on that site.

This was really pointless killing of many people,I call that a massacre,what do you call it?

They were going home,after looting admittedly,posing no threat whatsoever to the life of any man or woman on the coalition's side.

brgnorway also puts forth exactly the same points about the embargo and the food for oil program as I meant it.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.

<span id='postcolor'>

So AFTER agreeing to withdraw and cease hostilities, they were bombed to pieces. This was taken from here, btw.

Not good

[FSPilot 0]

Erm, didn't the cease fire not take effect until April 11th? After it was agreed do on the 6th?

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/timeline/time5.htm

[Longinius 1]

"The clear rapid incineration of human beings suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incendiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660.

Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who “are out of combatâ€.

There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending siege of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the “highway of deathâ€. The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indiscriminate and excessive use of force."

OK, so lets for a second disregard the fact that they were attacked while complying with a UN resolution. Lets instead focus on the part where the US breaks the Geneva convention with the weapons they are using. Isnt that bad enough?

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Dec. 03 2002,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 04 2002,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The people from Iraq do not want a war, they don't want to get "liberated".  The only thing they really want is less poor people.<span id='postcolor'>

unbelievable. *shakes head*<span id='postcolor'>

Excuse me, have YOU seen people from Iraq talking about the US already?  Do you know any people who used to live in Iraq and who do NOT want a war?

I don't think you have, but one thing is sure, i have seen all that, i've been studying this situation for a while now and just for this once you can try to trust me.

Have you ever seen a huge amount of ppl from Iraq supporting an invasion?

I don't think so...

Edit: Acted a bit stupid..

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 03 2002,21:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 04 2002,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just think it's good to show that some of these problems you ppl talk about also happen exactly where you live...<span id='postcolor'>

Not really.

Iraq's whole country is impovershed and starving.

What you're thinking of in the U.S. is people who don't/won't get up and get a job.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm are you sure about that? Looks to me like those people don't get the opportunity (sp?) to work.

Oh well, i can't really say a lot about it, i've seen something very nice about it on TV and the situation looked a lot different...

[PitViper 0]

why would Kuwaiti citizens be going into Iraq?

I'd like to the see the tactical situation that led to this.  If the forces were engaging, and then the coalition forces swung the flank around and the iraqis grabbed all the fast civilian vehicles they could to try to flee the closing door, are they still fair game?  it would seem pointless to me to let them flee if you achieved the tactical advantage.  in fact, it would be tactically STUPID to let them flee.  The real details of the situation from those pages are not accurate enough for me to make such a tactical assessment. I guess the armchair generals have enough info though.  

[Longinius 1]

Pit, care to comment on the use of napalm and other "banned" weapons then?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Dec. 05 2002,19:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, so lets for a second disregard the fact that they were attacked while complying with a UN resolution.<span id='postcolor'>

Did the UN resolution end the war, or the hostitlities between the U.S. and Iraqi forces?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets instead focus on the part where the US breaks the Geneva convention with the weapons they are using. Isnt that bad enough?<span id='postcolor'>

Point out to me where the geneva convention outlaws these weapons, please.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Dec. 05 2002,11:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pit, care to comment on the use of napalm and other "banned" weapons then?<span id='postcolor'>

napalm?  Do we even have any in our logistical supply chain?  Perhaps they are confusing HE weaponry with napalm? is it all hearsay by some generic anti-military type?  or some forensic expert? I can't answer without any facts to make a judgement on!

[Akira 0]

Interestingly I found that the US has signed all the Geneva Conventions....EXCEPT the two protocols of 1977.

Also the 1977 Protocols seem to do with protection of the civilian population and services necessary for their survival. A bit unrealistic in a sense of war but still....

The 1980 Protocols have to do with banned conventional and "inhumane" weapons.

Also I should note that the banned weapons that I found were only of biological or chemical origin or what are regarded as "anti-personnel" mines.

Oh yeah...and some weapon known as a "Blinding Laser Weapon". *shrug*

[Balschoiw 0]

Ok here is some big piece of info on the "highway to hell".

There are other links that contain pics, but they show burnt people so they dont fit here.

If you check the pictures that you can easily find via google, you see that victims have been burnt instantly. Conventional weapons cant cause the rapid burn of human bodies. Chemical tests showed that the use of Napalm or any other high flaming substance is very likely.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

The comment about landmines is a bit tricky in my opinion, cause the bomblets US use are turning into landmines when they dont explode right when they hit the ground. The failure rate of the bomblets is that high that it is assumed it is more an option than failure. Check Yugoslavia war for details.

Also US used WMD´s in Irak by using DU rockets, missiles and projectiles. The effects are know as "Gulf war syndrom". The Iraki population suffers a lot from the use of Depleted Uranium weapons during gulf war.

The bombing of Irak has actually not stoped till now.

The "No fly zone" that was NOT set up by UN, but US, Brits and French participants (French are not involved into this any more today) is a permant bombing corridor for US and Brit forces.

http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html

This is simply cut by media. Maybe now you can understand, why the Iraki people are not very happy about being "liberatet".

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 05 2002,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you check the pictures that you can easily find via google, you see that victims have been burnt instantly. Conventional weapons cant cause the rapid burn of human bodies. Chemical tests showed that the use of Napalm or any other high flaming substance is very likely.<span id='postcolor'>

A few weeks ago, a old man had a heart attack while driving on the highway, crashed the car, and the car began to burn, with him in it.  He was a crispy critter (just like those in the Highway of death pics) and the police didn't know if it was a man or woman in the car when they showed up.  When they did an autopsy on him and stated the cause of death a major heart attack.

Yet no evidence of high explosives were ever discovered at the accident site

-=Die Alive=-

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Dec. 05 2002,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 05 2002,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you check the pictures that you can easily find via google, you see that victims have been burnt instantly. Conventional weapons cant cause the rapid burn of human bodies. Chemical tests showed that the use of Napalm or any other high flaming substance is very likely.<span id='postcolor'>

A few weeks ago, a old man had a heart attack while driving on the highway, crashed the car, and the car began to burn, with him in it.  He was a crispy critter (just like those in the Highway of death pics) and the police didn't know if it was a man or woman in the car when they showed up.  When they did an autopsy on him and stated the cause of death a major heart attack.

Yet no evidence of high explosives were ever discovered at the accident site

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

that was 1 person

with the highway of death , we're talking about several thousands of people

[Balschoiw 0]

There were specialist at the "highway to hell " site that certainly know their jobs and have seen victims of whatever weapon used in the Gulf war. So you doubt their reports ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet no evidence of high explosives were ever discovered at the accident site <span id='postcolor'>

If you think the "highway to hell" is something to make jokes about you missed something or your humour is really weird.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 05 2002,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also US used WMD´s in Irak by using DU rockets, missiles and projectiles. The effects are know as "Gulf war syndrom".<span id='postcolor'>

umm.. DU is not WMD. Nor is it the cause of the "gulf war syndrome". The most probable cause of "gulf war syndrome", imo, was the experimental anti-chemical vaccines given to troops in-theater.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 05 2002,21:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There were specialist at the "highway to hell " site that certainly know their jobs and have seen victims of whatever weapon used in the Gulf war. So you doubt their reports ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet no evidence of high explosives were ever discovered at the accident site <span id='postcolor'>

If you think the "highway to hell" is something to make jokes about you missed something or your humour is really weird.<span id='postcolor'>

He wasn't making a joke.

He was pointing out that people are charred just as bad from normal high-degree fires such as those caused by burning fuel. His point was that those bodies could have been caused just as easily by high-degree temps from burning fuel in tanks, cars, trucks, or what have you.

Is there a residue proof that can be stated? IE a left over chemical that is a signature of napalm etc.

[ran 0]

do you have any scientific proof backing up what you are both saying ?

there are many different hypothesis about the gulf war syndrom , and the DU ammo one isn't less valid than the vaccine one , not even talking about possible emmanations of dangerous biological or chemical agents from destroyed WMD production complexes

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 05 2002,22:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 05 2002,21:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There were specialist at the "highway to hell " site that certainly know their jobs and have seen victims of whatever weapon used in the Gulf war. So you doubt their reports ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet no evidence of high explosives were ever discovered at the accident site    <span id='postcolor'>

If you think the "highway to hell" is something to make jokes about you missed something or your humour is really weird.<span id='postcolor'>

He wasn't making a joke.

He was pointing out that people are charred just as bad from normal high-degree fires such as those caused by burning fuel. His point was that those bodies could have been caused just as easily by high-degree temps from burning fuel in tanks, cars, trucks, or what have you.

Is there a residue proof that can be stated? IE a left over chemical that is a signature of napalm etc.<span id='postcolor'>

how can you explain that all these cars have caught on fire ?

[ralphwiggum 6]

maybe it's me but this thread should be about what will future Iraq gov't will be instead of discussion about 10 years ago?

[FSPilot 0]

I wrote a paper on DU shells recently for college. I wasn't biased in my writing, and I was using reliable sources (FAS, and a report to congress to name some).

It's available online here. If you don't want to read it, I came to the conclusion that DU was not a cause of any sicknesses, unless you were being shot at with it. DU does release radiation and a radioactive dust into the atmosphere, but it has not proven to be dangerous if you're not getting a big dose of it.

Ok, so here's my understanding about the "highway of death."

The U.S. did not sign that specific geneva convention and is not recquired to abide by it. The vehicles/troops that were engaged were technically combatants and were engaged as such.

I don't see what the problem is.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Dec. 06 2002,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how can you explain that all these cars have caught on fire ?<span id='postcolor'>

They were bombed. explosion + gasoline = fire

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 05 2002,22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Dec. 06 2002,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how can you explain that all these cars have caught on fire ?<span id='postcolor'>

They were bombed.  explosion + gasoline = fire

<span id='postcolor'>

hmm .... no ...... as mentionned earlier , if 500lb bombs had been used .. even CBU bomblets , there would be more probing traces and craters on the ground

the bombs (whatever they would be) would have litterally sprayed shrapnels all around the highway on a really large superficy leaving only craters and small debris

[ran 0]

since when is FAS a reliable source ?

[Akira 0]

My whole thing about this is this (like it matters):

While acknowledging that attacking a fleeing army isn't "honorable," this form of tactics has been going on for thousands of years. The first job of any army in war is to destroy the enemies ability to wage war, one aspect of that is to crush their military. Whether it was withdrawing or not the smart TACTICAL and STRATIGIC decision was to destroy that army. It does no good to let an army disengage unmolested just to be able to fight or attack some other time at some other place.

If civilians were mixed into the group....not too smart. You don't hitch a ride next to a tank and apc when the enemy has air superiority. Thats askin' to be bombed. I'm not trying to make lite of civilian deaths, but the US can't be blamed for civilians intermingling with a moving army.

Also the "Highway of Death" happend in March. The cease-fire wasn't agreed upon and signed until April. The army moving, whether retreating or not, was still a fighting force. This leads me to believe this was NOT an army "going home" but retreating from rapid Allied advancements. They were going home to avoid encirclement. Let us not forget as well that a counter-attack was staged by the Iraqi army in Kuwait that penetrated Saudi territory. The threat was there. The moving army was a valid target.