At what point does a war become a massacre?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 21 2003,15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It seems to me that you have the problem.  I specifically told you that they did not engage troops who surrendered outright from the gulf war info I have read.  <span id='postcolor'>

We are talking about the "Highway of death" incident not the entire gulf war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you have any proof of this ROE change other than pages of activists who have never done a day in the military?<span id='postcolor'>

You mean like a US military site saying that? Yeah right. As I said serch on google, many articles on the subject. Read George Bush's statement made on February 27, 1991.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and another thing, I find yourt activity to be very unbecoming of a moderator, especially this post of yours. Moderators aren't supposed to be the primary debater in most threads in the forum one moderates particularly with some of the positions you have taken.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, it's a good thing that I don't give a damn what you think about how moderators are supposed to act.

I suggest you read the forum rules, especially §2.6.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, it's a good thing that I don't give a damn what you think about how moderators are supposed to act.

I suggest you read the forum rules, especially §2.6.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you not held to the same rules? In my opinion, your last post seems to be in violation of rule 1.1 (imo) and certainly rule 3.6.

I recommend there should be a new rule, specifically for moderators:  Moderators will not become active in major threads (particularly in this forum! ) as there would come to exist a conflict of interest with one's duties as a moderator and active participant who is to be moderated. AFAIK, this seems to be the general rule of any properly-functioning board I know.  Just a suggestion of course   That is all I will be post regarding this in respect to rule 2.6

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 21 2003,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you not held to the same rules? In my opinion, your last post seems to be in violation of rule 1.1 (imo) and certainly rule 3.6.<span id='postcolor'>

The simple answer is no: Moderators are not held to the same rules. If you wish to ask about that further, send me a PM since it is a discussion that is not relevant to the thread and in violation of §2.6.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,07:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To find more articles, just search for iraq and denial of quarter.

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

If anyone cares enough to verify some of the ramblings presented here as fact, here is a transcript of Bush's speech on February 27, 1991.  Conspicuously absent is any mention of denial of quarter.

Then again, since Ms. Joyce Chediac (the author of the steaming pile you're quoting) calls it a "racist mass murder of Arab people," I doubt that she's got two brain cells to rub together.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 21 2003,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,07:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To find more articles, just search for iraq and denial of quarter.

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

If anyone cares enough to verify some of the ramblings presented here as fact, here is a transcript of Bush's speech on February 27, 1991.  Conspicuously absent is any mention of denial of quarter.

Then again, since Ms. Joyce Chediac (the author of the steaming pile you're quoting) calls it a "racist mass murder of Arab people," I doubt that she's got two brain cells to rub together.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

As far as I know it wasn't the national speech the author was refering to but to Bush's statement to the US military. I have another reference to it but unfortunately there is a rather large picture of the remains of a burned Iraqi soldier.

I gave you a reference to a reprint of an San Francisco Chroncile (pretty main-stream) article. It refers to a different incident, but the principle holds.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Newsday disclosed in September that many Iraqi troops were buried alive when the First Mechanized Infantry Division attacked an 8,000-man division defending Saddam Hussein's front line.

U.S. commanders told Newsday that thousands had been buried during the two-day assault Feb. 24-25, 1991. During the February 27 Iraqi retreat from Kuwait, tens of thousands of vehicles were destroyed by U.S. jets. But most estimates said 1,000 or fewer Iraqis were killed.

According to the new report, the incidents raised questions about the Geneva Convention's prohibition of "denial of quarter" -- refusing to accept an enemy's offer to surrender. It said:

"There is a gap in the law of war in defining precisely when surrender takes effect or how it may be accomplished. An attempt at surrender in the midst of a hard-fought battle is neither easily communicated nor received. The issue is one of reasonableness."

At the time the Iraqi front was breached, commanders were still concerned about the threat of chemical, gas and missile attack. "Because of these uncertainties and the need to minimize loss of U.S. lives, military necessity required that the assault ... be conducted with maximum speed and violence," the report said.

"Many Iraqis surrenderd during this phase of the attack and were taken prisoner. The division then assaulted the trenches containing other Iraqi soldiers. Once astride the trench lines, the division turned the plow blades of its tanks and combat earth movers along the Iraqi defense line.

"In the process many more Iraqi soldiers surrendered; others died in the course of the attack and the destruction or bulldozing of their defensive positions."

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said the report ignored the Bush administration's failure to disclose the location of the burial site. "That is a clear violation of Articles 15 and 16 of the First Geneva Convention," he said.

<span id='postcolor'>

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I know it wasn't the national speech the author was refering to but to Bush's statement to the US military. I have another reference to it but unfortunately there is a rather large picture of the remains of a burned Iraqi soldier.  <span id='postcolor'>

Could you PM me the link, or quote the relevant passage?  I think I just read the page you're referencing, and for the life of me I can't seem to find it again.  (Yes, I know:  Google OWNZ me)  I've seen "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." cut-and-pasted word-for-word in three different "sources," but strangely I can't seem to find Bush's original statement.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I gave you a reference to a reprint of an San Francisco Chroncile (pretty main-stream) article. It refers to a different incident, but the principle holds.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Many Iraqis surrenderd during this phase of the attack and were taken prisoner. The division then assaulted the trenches containing other Iraqi soldiers. Once astride the trench lines, the division turned the plow blades of its tanks and combat earth movers along the Iraqi defense line.

"In the process many more Iraqi soldiers surrendered; others died in the course of the attack and the destruction or bulldozing of their defensive positions."<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

So to summarize, the Iraqi troops that surrendered, lived.  Those who didn't, didn't.

Semper Fi

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 21 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So to summarize, the Iraqi troops that surrendered, lived.  Those who didn't, didn't.<span id='postcolor'>

Here's an opinion formed across an 8-year investigation by a journalist with at least 2 Pulitzers to rub together.  I posted about this earlier.  Perhaps you missed it.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 21 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's an opinion formed across an 8-year investigation by a journalist with at least 2 Pulitzers to rub together.  I posted about this earlier.  Perhaps you missed it.<span id='postcolor'>

Tell me, I would like to know in what two years did Mr. Hersh win those Pulitzers?

-=Die Alive=-

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 21 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could you PM me the link, or quote the relevant passage?  I think I just read the page you're referencing, and for the life of me I can't seem to find it again.  (Yes, I know:  Google OWNZ me)  I've seen "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." cut-and-pasted word-for-word in three different "sources," but strangely I can't seem to find Bush's original statement.<span id='postcolor'>

It's the same for me. I can't seem to find it All I can find are an identical reference to a Bush statement that I can't seem to locate.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell me, I would like to know in what two years did Mr. Hersh win those Pulitzers?

<span id='postcolor'>

Seymour Hersh was the one that uncovered the My Lai Massacre. He got a pulitzer for his report in 1970.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 21 2003,20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's an opinion formed across an 8-year investigation by a journalist with at least 2 Pulitzers to rub together.  I posted about this earlier.  Perhaps you missed it.<span id='postcolor'>

Show me in the article where the U.S. military was ordered to give no quarter to surrendering Iraqis.

Good luck, 'cause you won't find it.  

Semper Fi

[PitViper 0]

the only thing I have found that is anywhere near the verbage that Denoir is using was on the following page:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/gulf-war.html

Another controversial incident involving coalition forces occurred on the last day of the ground campaign, as an entire column of Iraqi troops was retreating from Kuwait. These troops had not surrendered, making them legitimate military targets. Yet, they put up only minimal resistance, while coalition aircraft dropped Rockeye fragmentation bombs and other antipersonnel arms, killing thousands. The ICRC concluded that the attacks "cause[d] unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury," and that they were tantamount to "a denial of quarter." Many other observers, however, counter that the concept of denial of quarter does not apply to forces that have not surrendered.

This was the red cross (ICRC) stating that they believe the attack on the retreating (not surrendering) troops was tantamount to "a denial of quarter" = simply their opinion much like yours.  I have yet to find anything saying that the ROE followed by the troops in the Gulf was to deny quarter to Iraqi soldiers. Frankly I think its absurd considering the lengths we went to accommodate those who surrendered.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='font-size:27pt;line-height:100%'>The ROE did not allow accepting surrender. The ROE denied quarters for the Iraqi</span><span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, you need to do some research.  If the ROE did not allow surrender, the Iraqi army could not of surrendered at the end of the war.  Not only that, but it's a simple fact that US soldiers DID accept surrendering Iraqis during the war.

[Harnu 0]

Denior, you argue that America consitantly break laws of the international communit. Yet you at these boards with the other moderators do basically what america does, why do you get to be above them?

Just having some fun mate.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 21 2003,23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you need to do some research.  If the ROE did not allow surrender, the Iraqi army could not of surrendered at the end of the war.  Not only that, but it's a simple fact that US soldiers DID accept surrendering Iraqis during the war.<span id='postcolor'>

I think I'm going to break down and cry  

For fuck's sake:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

We are talking about the "Highway of death" incident not the entire gulf war.

<span id='postcolor'>

If you are going to comment my posts, please read them first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 22 2003,23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet you at these boards with the other moderators do basically what america does, why do you get to be above them?<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps you are right. We should start issuing preemptive bans

[Harnu 0]

You know I was kidding

And I swear, I've removed all my destrucitve comments!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For fuck's sake:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

We are talking about the "Highway of death" incident not the entire gulf war.

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Well maybe you should of said that when you typed it in <span style='font-size:27pt;line-height:100%'>giant letters</span>.

[Bernadotte 0]

E6Hotel:  So to summarize, the Iraqi troops that surrendered, lived.  Those who didn't, didn't.

Bernadotte:  Here's an opinion formed across an 8-year investigation by a journalist with at least 2 Pulitzers to rub together.

E6Hotel:  Show me in the article where the U.S. military was ordered to give no quarter to surrendering Iraqis.  Good luck, 'cause you won't find it.

I never said I would.  However, the article does emphasise that not all Iraqi troops that surrendered, lived.

[FSPilot 0]

Look, you guys should know that in a war bad things happen. Innocent people get killed. If you have your hands in the air you're still going to get hit by shrapnel or a stray bullet the same if you were holding a gun.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 22 2003,06:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never said I would.  However, the article does emphasise that not all Iraqi troops that surrendered, lived.<span id='postcolor'>

And I never said that ALL of them did.  However, it's accurate with respect to the specific article that we (i.e. the Swede and I) were discussing.

The article you linked strongly suggests (to me, anyway) that the two incidents referenced (the Bradleys and the Iraqis running out of the building) were accidental or caused by negligence.  Unless you think that the Bradley gunners intended to engage the Americans, too?  

Mr. Hersch does not even suggest that our ROE's prohibited giving quarter to surrendering Iraqi troops.  I understand that maybe you weren't trying to prove that it did; however, that was the point of contention that we (again, denoir & I) were discussing.  My summary applied specifically to the article denoir presented as support for his opinion on our ROE's, and taken in that context, my statement is correct.

Semper Fi

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 22 2003,07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 22 2003,06:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never said I would.  However, the article does emphasise that not all Iraqi troops that surrendered, lived.<span id='postcolor'>

And I never said that ALL of them did.  However, it's accurate with respect to the specific article that we (i.e. the Swede and I) were discussing.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry for butting in to your discussion with denoir.  Somehow I feel that the world may be a slightly safer place knowing that you've read the Hersch article.

Thanks for that and I hope you'll share it with all your marine buddies.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 23 2003,20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry for butting in to your discussion with denoir.<span id='postcolor'>

Now don't get snippy.  We both know that if I hadn't specified, we'd have spent the next 10 posts arguing about who said what and when.  

Semper Fi

[Bernadotte 0]

maybe next time...

[syco 0]

Bottom Line (like it or don't) THE US AND BRITAIN KICKED ASS ONCE AGAIN!!! All the while being careful to avoid civilian casualties, and with minor loss of life. Sorry NAYSAYERS! We win!!!!

[garth 0]

YES! We kicked another defenseless country's ass. USA! USA! USA! Now we get cheap oil! YES! USA! USA! We rule! Go Bush. Let's invade Luxemburg! USA!  

I'm so PROUD to be American right now!  

..... and people ask why we Americans are unpopular in the world  

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ludovico Technique @ 19 Feb. 2003,05:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In short if you're going to take candy from a baby you don't have to use a chainsaw.<span id='postcolor'>

Please take into consideration that wars are basically the only (and very rare) occasion where equippment and military strategies can be tested. Any war is always training for the next one. Why did the allied forces in WWIII continue bombing cities (especially in France) after occuping forces already retreated? Simply to bring Moral-bombing to its perfectionism.

The chainsaw example is inadequate. You might have a chainsaw in the one hand but in the other you have nothing better than a knife. In the end you have to kill the baby to get the candy. The term "war" itself sets death as the successive target.