|
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Whoa, call off your hounds! 
I never claimed that this was a body with an international authority, or the authority to prosecute those it finds "guilty". My reading of the text was that it was an independant body examining the course of conduct in the first Gulf war (which it is) and that it was to be passed on to the bodies responsible for prosecuting war criminals when "evidence sufficient to sustain convictions of the accused or others is obtained and after demanding the production of documents from the U.S. government, and others, and requesting testimony from the accused, offering them a full opportunity to present any defense personally, or by counsel".
Regardless of the authority of the body, and regardless of whether or not you agree with their assertions, my point was merely to highlight the fact that there are grounds there for the issue to be brought to trial (I'll agree that my comment "Bush and Cheney both found guilty of war crimes" was badly phrased and incorrect ) and that given the American immunity from the international court system, the chances of this ever being brought to trial were incredibly slim.
As with regards to the "retreating soldiers" claim, there is plenty of evidence supporting it. The pictures I provided earlier were from this offensive, and this is an eyewitness account from 1991:
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm
As for whether this constitutes a war crime, I'll take your word for it, Yeopus, that none of those documents (in their entirity) declare that retreating soldiers are "neutral" in any sense, but still, you should consider these points, and they are raised as questions rather than assertions:
1) Wouldn't the fact that much of this occurred after the cease-fire detract from its legitmacy?
2) Wouldn't the fact that the objective of the war was to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait, detract from the legitimacy of the policy of killing largely defenseless Iraqi troops deep inside Iraq as they fled back to Baghdad?
3) Wouldn't you say that this "devastation [was] not justified by military necessity", going against the Nuremberg Charter?
Regardless, the point of posting that article was merely to highlight the elements of warfare that we may not always hear about - these cold, almost inhumane actions (and yes I'm sure that both sides were committing travesties like this during the conflict) and that individuals such as Colin Powell and Dick Cheney - who are almost certainty actively involved in this campaign in some way - were responsible.
I apologize if you think it belittles my "critical" self, but I thought it was worth bringing up. |
Renegade, again your source is not exactly the most impartial account of events. First I would like to point out several facts. The UN resolution set a deadline for Iraq to be unconditionally and completely withdrawn from Iraq by January 15, 1991. Bush issued an additional ultimatum for Iraq to withdraw by February 23. The ground war for Iraq didn't even BEGIN until February 24th. So this Iraqi acceptance of a soviet brokered truce (before the ground war even started) on the 21st called for a "gradual" withdraw which was still in violotion of the UN resolution AND the US ultimatum. Now here is an excerpt from the official report to congress on the details of the ground war:
| quote: |
The Threat as of 23 February - The Day Before the Ground Offensive
Iraqi Defensive Positions and Plan
As discussed earlier, the Iraqi Army was prepared to defend the KTO. Operational and tactical level plans existed, preparations for contingencies were made and executed, and, while some units in the forward areas were composed of second class troops, many Iraqi regular and heavy units put up a fight. The Iraqi defensive strategy, however, was not prepared for the Coalition's offensive strategy The Iraqi assumption that the tactics used in the Iran-Iraq War would be applicable against the Coalition proved faulty, as did their assumption that the attack would be terrain-oriented in support of the Coalition's political goal of liberating Kuwait. Further, once the air war began, Iraqi tactical intelligence became virtually blind. Most importantly, Iraqi defensive planning was rendered ineffective due to the speed, maneuver, firepower, and technological advantages of the Coalition offensive, which surprised and overwhelmed the Iraqis.
The Iraqis prepared for the expected assault into Kuwait in a manner that reflected the successes of their defensive strategy during the Iranian War. They constructed two major defensive belts in addition to extensive fortifications and obstacles along the coast. The first belt paralleled the border roughly five to 15 kilometers inside Kuwait and was composed of continuous minefields varying in width from 100 to 200 meters, with barbed wire, antitank ditches, berms, and oil filled trenches intended to cover key avenues of approach. Covering the first belt were Iraqi platoon and company-size strongpoints designed to provide early warning and delay any attacker attempting to cut through.
The second obstacle belt, up to 20 kilometers behind the first, began north of Al-Khafii and proceeded northwest of the Al-Wafrah oilfields until it joined with the first near Al-Manaqish. This second obstacle belt actually constituted the main Iraqi defensive line in Kuwait. Obstacles and minefields mirrored those of the first belt.
They were covered by an almost unbroken line of mutually supporting brigade-sized defensive positions composed of company trench lines and strongpoints. The minefields contained both antitank and antipersonnel mines.
The Iraqi tactical plan was designed to slow the attacker at the first belt, to trap him in prearranged kill zones between the two belts, and to destroy him before he could break through the second belt. Any attacking forces able to breach the second belt would be counterattacked immediately behind the strongpoints by division and corps level armor reserves.
|
For a country that is abiding by UN resolutions a) They shouldn't even BE in Kuwait and b) They seem to have an AWFUL lot of defensive fortifications in place for a retreating army! Plus it was really quite generous of them to burn Kuwaiti oil fields as they retreated. Please keep in mind that what is said on Iraqi radio is NOT necessarily the same thing that Iraqi commanders are telling their troops. As for the attack into Iraq after Kuwait was liberating, it was still valid in the sense that the Iraqis might have been been regrouping to reattack. Keep in mind teh ground war lasted less than 100 hours!!! It's not liek they had several months to come to the conclusion that Iraqi forces were completely routed and would and have NO intent of continuing the attack. The cease fire was initiaed on the 27th and only on March 3 did Iraq agree to abide by ALL UN resolutions. Also in no way does the liberation of Kuwait necessarily limit all military operations to Kuwait. Conducting an air campaign and a ground campaign that would be limited ONLY to Kuwait is ridiculous and would be reminiscent of politicians trying to fight the war in Vietnam.
I'm not saying that my source is completely impartial either but don't BELIEVE everything you read without looking at the other side! Especially with something that is completely one-sided as that.
|
