What does PrepHole think of the Highway of Death and the morality of killing retreating soldiers generally? For those who don't know near the end of Gulf I the coalition air forces thoroughly fucked up the columns of Iraqi vehicles fleeing north on the Kuwait-Basra highway. A lot of people were upset that they killed retreating troops, with some saying that the Geneva conventions protect any troops "out of combat" or that by retreating the Iraqis were complying with the UN resolution demanding their withdrawal from Kuwait. Norman Schwarzkopf justified his order by saying:
>The first reason why we bombed the highway coming north out of Kuwait is because there was a great deal of military equipment on that highway, and I had given orders to all my commanders that I wanted every piece of Iraqi equipment that we possibly could destroy. Secondly, this was not a bunch of innocent people just trying to make their way back across the border to Iraq. This was a bunch of rapists, murderers and thugs who had raped and pillaged downtown Kuwait City and now were trying to get out of the country before they were caught.
What does PrepHole think about this? To my mind, if a soldier sees he's on the losing side and wants to live he can surrender, which many did of course, and even from the Highway of Death itself about 2,000 Iraqis did abandon their vehicles and surrender. Note too that a lot of guys, stuck in a traffic jam and hearing strafing, just abandoned their vehicles and ran into the desert, so despite the name and the photos of endless destroyed vehicles, the human toll from the HoD was not that horrific. But yeah personally I don't see how retreating with all your weapons and vehicles exempts you from getting got. Retreaters can always regroup and come back and seem to me like valid military targets, if you want to live you can surrender imo. What do you guys think?
They fucked around and found out, simple as.
I still am upset at MW19 teying to rewrite the history on that one.
Four points
1. Unless they're waving a white flag, they're free game.
2. If they're still armed, they're free game.
3. Moreover the initial casualty numbers from the Highway of Death were MASSIVELY overestimated. When Coalition aircraft started bombing the column, most Iraqis simply ditched their vehicles and fled into the desert, they were not pursued. Approximately 1,000 Iraqis died for nearly 3,000 vehicles (enough to equip several divisions by American standards).
4. The Iraqis had already violated the laws of war by stealing vehicles from Kuwaiti civilians and allegedly taking a number of them as hostages/human shields and had thus forfeited their protections under the Geneva Convention.
tl;dr not sorry, do it against Storming' Norman
>I still am upset at MW19 teying to rewrite the history on that one.
It's not like the Russians did WORSE things in Chechnya anon. Plenty of columns of refugees met a grisly end at the hands of the VKS.
What the americans did to Iraqi armor the russian did the chechen anuses.
>even chechens don't accept petukh suicide bombers
man their entire society is structured around dick taking hierarchies isn't it
this smells like a black propaganda infoop to me
why the fuck would assblasted chechmen *ask* permission before anheroing in a blaze of anti-post-soviet glory? They waged guerilla war on USSR/Russia forever, probably didn't really fully stop.
>Be CIA
>Drive deeper wedge between disparate Chechens and Russians, provoke suHispanicion between those who might have abandoned older hostilities and mindsets, all at the cost of 1 assrape fanfic
>????
>Profit
It doesn't seem THAT far out of believability though, but basically it reads like textbook black propaganda, e.g. what the japs dropped on the flips pretending to be GIs in WWII
fucking sorry, selfreply for clarity about the cited infoop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda#Pacific_Theatre
"GUARD AGAINST VENEREAL DISEASES
Lately there has been a great increase in the number of venereal diseases among our officers and men owing to prolific contacts with Filipino women of dubious character.
Due to hard times and stricken conditions brought about by the Japanese occupation of the islands, Filipino women are willing to offer themselves for a small amount of foodstuffs. It is advisable in such cases to take full protective measures by use of condoms, protective medicines, etc.; better still to hold intercourse only with wives, virgins, or women of respective [sic] character.
Furthermore, in view of the increase in pro-American leanings, many Filipino women are more than willing to offer themselves to American soldiers, and due to the fact that Filipinos have no knowledge of hygiene, disease carriers are rampant and due care must be taken.
—U. S. ARMY"
>why the fuck would assblasted chechmen *ask* permission before anheroing in a blaze of anti-post-soviet glory?
Jihad requires a fatwa to be issued by a relgious leader to be considered valid so that part is actually normal.
Fuccccck I forgot that they were pale cold-dwelling Muslims and that they'd do the holy war, yeah; that does make sense. So the assumption is that the religious wrongdoing of a holy war for assrape revenge would be so great as to supersede the revenge killing of your buttsavagers' comrades and families? If so that is actually very reserved and pious, I guess? I assumed they'd disregard their mores due to being completely shattered and doomed to burn in hell for being raped, but I have no fucking clue what religious authorities might tell them Allah's perspective on what happened to it and their response might be. Sounds nightmarish actually. Someone call VICE.
Never played MW 1 2 but I just thought it's a little disingenuous. If you write alt history you can make tounge-in-cheek references like this to popular historic events, like if you write a story were France lost WW1 and as a result the Holocaust happens there.
But with something like this, that most normalfags probably never heard of? It's kinda strange.
But maybe I'm reading to much into it "HIghway of Death" isn't exactly an original name, so maybe it's just a coincidence.
>I still am upset at MW19 teying to rewrite the history on that one.
>this fucking bullshit again.
>I still am upset at MW19 teying to rewrite the history on that one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that an entirely different FICTIONAL Highway of Death in an entirely different FICTIONAL war that never happened that had nothing at all to do with the Gulf War of 1991? Why do shillbots get so hung up on this?
How many civs died there?
none, only enemy combatants
Why are there so many civilian cars blown? How come there were no civs?
Because Iraqi cowards were stealing everything, and even started jacking firetrucks to flee faster when faced with an enemy that could actually fight.
Because the retreating Iraqis stole whatever vehicle (and anything that wasn't nailed down) they could find in a bid to escape Kuwait in the wake of the American advance.
>morality of killing retreating soldiers generally?
i have a moral and ethical duty to ensure i am not falling for a feint that may kill my own troops when killing retreating soldiers
that is all
Retreating soldiers are fair targets. If they've disarmed and surrendered it's a different story.
>propaganda spam
What happened in Pussia this time?
Remember how the past few months al the attention was on Robotyne? The defenses about 50kms east of it completely fell through while everyone was distracted
ITS DAAA ROOOOOS
They were retreating, not surrendering. That means they were planning to keep fighting. So the only option was to wipe them out by any means necessary.
Retreating forces are forces you'll have to face at less advantageous position for you later. You are not supposed to care for the lives of the enemy only your own side's.
No armed combatant should expect to receive mercy unless and until he has made clear his surrender. In a reverse situation not only would the Iraqis have made the same choice, they would instead of regarding it with guilt look back on it with pride. No soldier ever wants to die, that doesn’t mean when thousands are caught in a disastrous situation they are to be given any more mercy than if they were in a superior one. They are grown men choosing to try and kill you, not children being told by their mother to carry out a chore.
Unless an enemy is explicitly surrendering or incapacitated they are a valid target. A retreating soldier isn't doing it for your benefit, they're stopping themselves from dying and keeping their strength which means they're still a potential threat and are actively resisting you.
>let them retreat and regroup
They had plenty of time to leave Kuwait with their lives. They chose death.
this, if you don't want to die, don't invade someone else, and that applies to everyone.
>break into neighbor's home
>sit in kitchen eating all their food
>entire neighborhood all better armed than you surround you and tell you to leave
>don't leave
>talk mad shit
>keep it real
>what proceeds is the greatest ass kicking planet earth has seen in a thousand years
>with some saying that the Geneva conventions protect any troops "out of combat"
The definition of "hors de combat" is very well defined in the conventions.
A retreating combatant is still very much a combatant and as such is a completely lawful target for destruction. The highway of death is not in any way a scandal or a violation of international conventions and laws of war. The entire publicity given to it is 100% a propaganda effort by opponents of the US and its military. That's all there is to it.
>sir how many things should we put into our EW infograph?
>yes
>if we don't understand what the fuck we're doing, then the enemy certainly won't!
What would be an example of hors de combat that you AREN'T allowed to attack by standards of the convention then?
The Geneva Conventions outright state:
>A person is hors de combat if:
>(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
>(b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
>(c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
>provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE.
Emphasis on the ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE.
So yes, the Geneva Conventions do not expressly prohibit you from attacking a retreating enemy. They protect people who are actively surrendering or are trapped and literally have no way of defending themselves.
>(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
I'm retarded, what's this one supposed to mean?
You can't kill POW's.
>You're a POW when the enemy has captured you
Captive of a hostile/non-allied force, i.e. POW
cute cat
I agree!
Disgusting creatures. They should be burned.
maybe you should be burned!
nobody has to portray russia as evil, they do that just fine by themselves.
It means someone being coersed or controlled by a foreign power basically. Ie, an enemy of your state owned by another state.
Ie someone controlled by someone else's government that happens to be your governments enemy.
Ie, a bad guy.
It basically means it only affects other countries troops you go to war with, its completely legal to kill your own surrendered troops and follow the Geneva conventions since they're not part of the opposing force, since what to do with your own people is entirely your states choice.
>(c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
Does that mean the drone footage of mobiks getting droned while wounded/dying in ditches is considered a war crime?
Vatniks never learn, do they?
Let me guess, you only made the thread so you can post rail the discussion to this?
It's a bit grey, but the intention is more "someone who you found already wounded or sick" and not "the guy you just bombed 2 minutes ago". Not to mention that drone combat is a bit vague in this department in regards to the exact rules.
That I feel why it is a gray zone, because the only difference between a secondary artillery strike finishing off a combatant and a drone dropping a grenade on a bunch of half dead ziggers is the fact that you can see it.
Though the camera gives you direct feed to the place youre going to strike, so I guess it violates c)? Does anything change when you know that theyre wounded?
forgot my image
>That I feel why it is a gray zone,
How you presented your question in your first post and this one speak an entire differnt language.
I'd assume in most cases it's hard it not impossible to determine whether the target is really incapacitated or is only pretending through that tiny screen, so it would be hard to prove it was intentional even if someone took it to the court.
tovarisch, delete this. is special military operation, not war.
Doesn't say anything about targeting the 5 able bodied enemies who are carrying the incapacitated man.
These protections are there so you don't walk into an aid station and ventilate people or so that you don't kill every wounded man you come across. They were written to protect people that have basically fallen in control of the enemy while wounded, it's not written to consider people getting killed by people miles away. It's a grey area because of the advance of technology not the spirit of the conventions.
It really isn’t. It’s no different than a German soldier walking through trenches after a battle and executing any wounded French soldiers he comes upon.
You cannot be incapacitated on the territory of your enemy
This rule only applies on your own territory
A relative of mine was Imperial Japanese Navy in world war 2 and was killed while running from US forces after seeing surrendering unit killed in the same island. None of my relatives ever held animosity towards the US forces that did that, and some ended up fighting for the US within their lifetime. Retreat is not surrender. There is never a guarantee that your surrender is accepted. The battlefield is ruled by winners and everyone else may die.
Reverse the question. Do YOU consider it a war crime? Juries are made of people. I wouldn't consider any of the drone videos war crimes.
Ukraine and Russia both agree they aren't at war and Ukraine has no strict laws against pest control, I don't see the problem
>abstains from any hostile act
I wanna stress how much this means ANY hostile act, as well. If you are a combatant surrendering in a war it is very much your responsibility to not get shot. Any physical resistance to being restrained, the actions of other people surrendering, even swearing, ANYTHING that could be interpreted as continued hostile intent is grounds for (essentially) summary execution.
>The entire publicity given to it is 100% a propaganda effort by... the US and its military.
ftfy
Retreat is not a surrender.
Only moral ambiquity would be if the attacking force does not give a chance or accept surrencer, or has especially negotiated an ceasefire or route for the enemy forces to withdraw.
One of the oldest rules of war is to ride out and destroy a routing enemy to permanently scatter and destroy them. It's been the conduct of war since the bronze age.
The only reason this has become so infamous is because of natuons hostile to the US turning it into a sob story and because of media reporting showing the absolutely awe-inspiring, one-sided aftermath of the complete destruction in fine detail. People accustomed to peace are often moved to discomfort when faced with absolute brutal domination through superior firepower and technology.
Not really the winning argument you think it is.
Some of the oldest rules of war are also to rape the enemy's women and murder their male children.
But those were always seen as bad, weren't part of battle itself and were eventually explicitly prohibited in a wide array of laws and treaties.
Engaging a routed enemie has been a constant for thousands of years, with zero moral ambiguity and no rules of law prohibiting it. From every point of view it's been a non-issue in all of history. If the hajis objected to it, then Saddam should've complained about it to the UN before invading Kuwait.
>But those were always seen as bad
No they weren't. They were two of the three pillars of warfare - murder, rapine, and pillaging.
But they weren't part of combat. They were something that always accompanied war. And it was always portrayed as something horrible (especially on the receiving side).
Routing an enemy and hunting them down has never been a problem, has always been part of combat, and has never had people opposed to it in any significant way as part of military strategy and combat. It's not even in the same category as rape or plunder.
Killing fleeing soldiers isn't combat either. It's just killing.
War
You kill enemies
Moralize later if anyone cares
adult men of military age are neither women nor children, you're a retard. The OP is also retarded. It's not a war crime to kill retreating soldiers, it is a war crime to kill surrendering soldiers. The geneva convention covers this under hors de combat which makes killing of the following soldiers a war crime
(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
(b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
(c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
the guys running down the highway of death were none of these. If you're going to bitch bitch about the palestinians and kuwaiti collaborating civilians that got wasted alongside the soldiers. Retreating is not surrendering.
>killing (thing that happens in battle)
>soldiers (enemy combatants)
vs
>raping (not something that happens in battle)
>civilians (noncombatants)
They are not remotely the same
Yeah but anon said running down a routing enemy was one of the oldest rules of WAR, not one of the oldest rules of BATTLE.
You're right, they're not the same. But anon is the one who made the stupid argument that war justifies crime.
Worked too didn't it.
Those werent the rules of war just the reWARds of war
there is nothing immoral about killing retreating soldiers. they are still legal combatants.
Retreating soldiers have never been considered whores de wombat until moralfags got upset at what they saw on TV
ditto for Belgrano
Surrender and retreat both involve stopping fighting, but are made very different concepts by the intent behind them.
A surrendering soldier stops fighting to volunteer/accept detainment by the enemy, and continues not fighting until officially exchanged (if even then). In this state they are therefore considered a non-combatant by international laws of war, and quite rightfully receive legal protections as such.
A retreating soldier only seeks to pause fighting so that they can resume from a more advantageous position behind them. As they have chosen to continue fighting, they remain no less of a threat to the enemy than a soldier advancing to a new position ahead of them, and therefore remain a combatant even if their retreat results in them getting put in a disadvantageous engagement.
Should have followed up with a nuke on Baghdad. I still don't understand why the libtards don't let us just nuke our enemies.
>not in the process of surrendering
Light them up lmao.
An enemy you kill today as he runs with his tail between his legs is an enemy you won't have to fight tomorrow after he's regrouped.
Pursuing withdrawing soldiers has been the textbook tactic of warfare since before the bronze age.. peaceniks and shillers trying to frame it as a warcrime simply don't deserve a response
All of them were valid military targets since the whole purpose of retreating was to regroup for more operations. Plus no official surrender from the Iraqis was even signed yet. Delusional lefties still think it was a war crime though.
Redeem the fucking voucher and live retard.
Fuck around and find out.
>Geneva conventions make any troops "not in combat" off limits
No they don't. Otherwise attacking a troop ship or base that isn't in active combat for instance would be a war crime. We both know it isn't.
>What does PrepHole think of the Highway of Death and the morality of killing retreating soldiers generally?
kill the enemy always
kill them in their rest areas, kill them in their hones, kill them when they eat, kill them while they retreat, kill them until they throw down their arms and crawl to you in supplication.
if they don't want to die, they can surrender unconditionally, otherwise kill them, destroy them, grind them to paste.
They were fair game. Unless by "retreat" you meant putting their hands on their heads and walking towards the enemy waving a white flag.
>when you stop even pretending to not be a shill
Retreating and repositioning are different things, but its a moot point. There's no reason to allow your enemy to regroup, there's nothing wrong with interdiction operations.
>Tell me this, when bunker buster bombs were dropped on Christian civilians in Iraqi civilian bomb shelters, was that right?
No, you wrote this to have something against America. It's a cheap and pretty transparent shill tactic where american fuck ups get ripped out of context and repeated indefinetely so no one talks anymore what the other side or others did. After a certain level of apathy and accetpance to the topic is established it gets pushed further, rinse and repeat. You have no power here, everyone knows what you are trying to do.
>killing surrendering troops
Cringe.
>killing retreating troops
Based.
It is this simple.
Americans try to portray Russia as evil.
You do this while Russia does not.
Any enemy that hasn't surrendered is still a threat and will be neutralized.
I thought the only way you won a war was by making the enemy die for their country?
Enemy manpower and materiel, apart of an army still presently at war with you, moving to new positions to continue the fight. IF they were surrendering/trying to initiate a ceasefire, or if they had totally disarmed, then maybe it's morally grey. Otherwise it's basically no different than shooting armed infatry in the open as they're fleeing an overrun position to a new one. They're still intending to kill you, just not actively shooting at you this very minute.
>The first reason why we bombed the highway coming north out of Kuwait is because there was a great deal of military equipment on that highway, and I had given orders to all my commanders that I wanted every piece of Iraqi equipment that we possibly could destroy. Secondly, this was not a bunch of innocent people just trying to make their way back across the border to Iraq. This was a bunch of rapists, murderers and thugs who had raped and pillaged downtown Kuwait City and now were trying to get out of the country before they were caught.
Should have left it at the first reason. A crime isn't justified just because the victim deserved it. By engaging in this pathetic caveman-tier moralising he reveals himself to not be the professional that he could have pretended to be if he left it at the first reason. He wants to have his cake and eat it too - he wants to have the satisfaction of being a professional soldier but he also wants the satisfaction of killing, and you can't have both.
I think probably he would say "I'm not saying I'm happy they're dead, just that I'm not gonna cry over it." But that's a distinction that doesn't exist. To the extent that you are less sad because they deserve it, you are happy because they are dead.
Ultimately this changes nothing, and it's not like it makes him a bad person. I'm happy they're dead too. But it does indicate maybe an unwillingness to question his own beliefs or a lack of insight, or just a mind which is not philosophically trained/inclined. Hardly uncommon in the military.
Problem is, this is not a victim/criminal relationship. The whole way you present it is flawed in itself. For instance, our entire justice systems' method of punishment utilizes "criminal" acts such as kidnapping (arrest and detainment) and murder (capital punishment) and it is justified precisely because the "victim" (who is the criminal in this case) deserves it. It is only written as law so that one has something tangible to reference instead of solely morality.
>Problem is, this is not a victim/criminal relationship.
I agree, and that's fundamentally the contradiction I'm pointing out. Schwarzkopf brings all that into consideration with his "Secondly,..." and he shouldn't because it's not a consideration. Whether or not they deserved it isn't relevant. By mentioning the fact that they deserved it he's inherently implying that he did something to them that a different person who wasn't a bad guy would not deserve to have done to them. In reality Schwarzkopf didn't do anything to them that requires a justification. So why is he trying to justify it?
The reason why that I proposed is because he wants the satisfaction of having given people what they deserve. But that's not his job as a soldier. That's why there's a contradiction - he wants to be a professional soldier and a judge. He wants the satisfaction of being a cool-headed, detached professional who sees war for what it "really is" and doesn't submit to base instincts like bloodlust; and he ALSO wants the satisfaction of fucking up some really bad fucking guys.
I don't think he would literally say as much or conceive it that way, like I said. He wouldn't say he was happy to have killed these guys, just that he's not gonna shed a tear over it. Or, to put it another way, he takes comfort from the fact that at least they deserved what he did to them. But that's morally inadequate even if it "feels" true.
Like I said I'm not criticizing Schwarzkopf for feeling that way. I'm criticizing the way he's failed to integrate the two contrary impulses. And maybe he hasn't - this a lot of analysis based on like two sentences. But I'm not usually very impressed by the moral depth of soldiers and soldiers aren't usually challenged on their morals because everyone is (rightly) so deferential to them on these issues. If Schwarzkopf were here I probably wouldn't say any of this to his face, lmao.
He's not sharing his personal beliefs idiot he's talking to the press, it's a skill to do that and leave people guessing.
>crime isn't justified just because the victim deserved it.
There was no crime to justify, he was just explaining that everyone on that highway was a legitimate target and not civies trying to get out of a warzone
>There was no crime to justify
Then what was he trying to justify? You don't say "they deserved it" unless you've done something that people don't usually deserve. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, I'm just saying that Schwarzkopf contradicts himself.
If he was saying that to justify his order, as the OP described, then I expect it was more for the audience rather than himself: by reminding them of the shit these people were doing in Kuwait, journos so inclined will have a harder time spinning it as the evil US military massacring fleeing innocents, and the general public will be more supportive of kicking them out.
They weren’t retreating, they were withdrawing
t. Dick Cheney
>What does PrepHole think of the Highway of Death and the morality of killing retreating soldiers generally?
A man's greatest pleasure is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them that which they possessed, to see those whom they cherished in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.
retreat =/= surrender.
Could care less about OPs question.
I am more interested if this was a real world test of SFW. It was not tried in combat- only testing and in LRIP phase at that time. Any battlefield lessons learned would have been invaluable.
>morality
fuck cares, if morality was important to anyone, there would be no wars.
Would love to see the gun cam vids of this. Now the area is farming and housing. irc they found a bunch of UXO there about 5 or 6 years ago.
Dude it was a highway with obvious mass graves along the sides as of like a year ago when I looked last on google earth, wtf are you talking about?
Sorry, took me a bit to find the article.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/bombs-from-1991-gulf-war-highway-of-death-found-in-kuwait
Can you show me the location of the mass graves?
Oh woah, no worries; thanks for the read.
Admittedly things do not look as clear-cut as I remembered, and modern data shows a great deal of development. Here's what I found a few minutes ago over the course of about 10 minutes investment. Kinda sus IMO but clearly not conclusive.
ah fuck, looking closer between modern 360 photos and the higher res bits of 20teens sat data it looks like people have been living out there in tents setting up the groundwork for the current development for like a decade, so IDFK I might just be autistic, retarded, and scizophrenic
Sorry I took so long to reply back to you. Thanks for these pix. I've tried to figure out where exactly it had occured but was never sure. A lot of time has passed. I had also heard that Kuwait hated the Iraqi's so much that all bodies were returned. They didn't want any enemy graves on their land.
I do remember when I first heard of it. Was listening to shortwave radio from western Canada and I think it was either on BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle english, or R.C.I. when it was mentioned about an ambush that decimated a column of Iraqi's trying to escape back to Iraq in stolen vehicles and with war booty. I do remember going to work and telling them about some huge attack. They were skeptical as CNN hadn't shown anything yet. The Coalition forces then declared a ceasefire shortly after?. Gradually the images and full extent of the engagement have come out.
They weren't surrendering. That meant they were still valid targets. They shouldn't have invaded Kuwait if they didn't want a beating.
>morality of killing retreating soldiers
you mean something done over the entire course of the human history of war?
Retreat means eventual regrouping and fighting again. Ideally you surround them and force a surrender but if thats not possible you kill the retreating force before they set defense at a more fortified location like a city.
If they wanted to live go surrender, Then its a warcrime to kill you. But retreat is fair game. Hitler couldve massacred the british at dunkirk and he was retarded to not do so. He couldve captured the brits and negotiated peace right there.
Where is the gun camera footage?
Either you surrender, or you retreat. If you retreat, you are a fighting combattant, ready to kill your way out and you should be ready to receive the same treatment.
Did A-10s get to do any runs on that huge fucking convoy? God the thought of emptying the GAU-8's ammo drum on all those vehicles makes me hard.
Just stop pretending youre a moral human being.
Then we'll know, when its youre to turn to run and flee, that youre not worth the trouble.
>soldiers I like getting killed
wtf war crimes
>soldiers I don‘t like getting killed
get fucked cunt
>This was a bunch of rapists, murderers and thugs who had raped and pillaged downtown Kuwait City and now were trying to get out of the country before they were caught.
Which turned out to be nothing but a big heap of lies and tall-tales. But yeah, those people are long dead and so is Schwartzkopf and many others. May he burn in hell. Good night.
Yeah, all the Kuwait citizens were just fleeing towards Iraq, since you know, they get along so well.
The My Lai of the Middle East. And even less people to stop it from happening
>Geneva conventions protect any troops "out of combat"
Neat, I didn't know that ambushes are warcrimes.
Any combat action has to be begun by sounding a siren and formally asking your enemies if they would like to engage in fighting
There are less Iraqi casualties in le highway than coalition friendly fire
They also spent an extra 50 hours bombing empty vehicles
>retreating
So not surrendering. Next!
>killing retreating soldiers generally?
Retreating forces are not surrendered forces, they are still enemy combatants, and should be treated as such. If they want to not die, they can surrender. War is not a sport. The strongest victories are cemented while the opposing force is unable to put up an effective defense. It is better to annihilate a defeated but non-capitulating enemy in an afternoon, than to permit them to drag a war on for years, bringing unnecessary death & destruction to both combatants and bystanders.
For a real-world example, Chang Kaishek allowed Mao's Red Army to retreat & recuperat while he fought the japanese, instead of crushing them. Mao then attacked & defeated Chang Kaishek's forces once they were weakened from defending China, and now we have the blight on humanity that is the Chinese Communist Party.
>For a real-world example, Chang Kaishek allowed Mao's Red Army to retreat & recuperat while he fought the japanese, instead of crushing them.
Well, failing to crush the enemy might be the same as allowing them escape, but the KMT did kill something like 90% of the CCP's forces during their retreat in the Long March. Or quite a lot in any case. Also he didn't totally control his own generals who forced him to pull back once the Japanese invaded, and some of the generals / warlords collaborated with the CCP.
It's a whole thing in Edgar Snow's book. He showed up in the communist area and they were, like, yeah the guys Chiang sent to contain is here are only pretending to fight while they let our trucks through the lines.
It is illegal, the idea itself is "ok" but there are moral implications when the enemy is a fish in a barrel. Does anyone care about Kuwait? Tell me right now what Kuwait has ever done for the USA??? Kuwait is the most ungratefuil gangster regime i have ever seen.
a retreating army is not the same as a surrendered army. there were no guarantees that the retreating iraqis would not turn and fight the approaching coalition forces. bombing them was no different from the germans bombing the dunkirk evacuees or the allies bombing the germans escaping the falaise pocket.
It was based and we should do it to the Russians when they flee Ukraine
They werent 'out of combat', they were being attacked.
Retreating out of kuwait was the solution to avoid fighting. After it kicked off the solution was to surrender.
1.Not a war crime.
2.They fucking deserved worse.
3.See #1 and #2.
>What does PrepHole think about this?
?si=i5LGs2-tm1aeizbo&t=389
Based, if you want to deprive the PrepHoleube of its blood, what can you do to prevent someone else from doing so
Killing a routing force has been a thing for as long as cavalry existed, and why it's important NOT TO RUN AWAY EN-MASSE.
Washington was legendary for the fact he knew how to rout from a disadvantageous engagement without getting his army wrecked.
>What does PrepHole think of the Highway of Death and the morality of killing retreating soldiers generally?
If they haven't surrendered, they're fair targets.
The enemy made the right call to withdraw and attempt to regroup, but they were caught as they fled without cover and in turn slaughtered before they could be redeployed to bolster defenses somewhere else.