|
Staying good to my word; zee reply (only done during the late hours with a bit of alcohol in me of course);
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The issue I raised was the force exerted on retreating forces who - at the time - quite obviously did not pose a threat to Kuwait or the US in the context of the primary objective of military intervention in the first place. |
Again, your remark is very blunt and some would take it blatently hostile; "did not pose a threat" How can you justify this in contrast to the generals at the time who obviously decided it posed a threat.. if it did not pose a threat, what was its purpose? Obviously its purpose was to destroy as much of the Iraqi military machine as they deemed necessary - in fact, some can come from the other angle and ask why did they stop? Why after the pictures in the international media did they stop the destruction of further retreating forces?
| quote: | | .... If 25-30,000 had been killed in the few days of the ground war alone (that is, excluding the other tens of thousands killed in air raids and missile attacks) you would think that such utter decimation would have preculded any possiblity of Saddam Hussein immediately regrouping his troops and sending them straight back into Kuwait |
You yourself state "immediately" regrouping. But the military commanders and the commander and chief at the helm were not necessarily thinking in the simple stated objective of: Liberate Kuwait at least possible cost and keep Iraq as strong as possible with same regieme who initated hostilites. As you might wish them to have thought of, therefore immediately might not be considered if it were different...
I personally believe the Commander in Chief was thinking more along the line of the following objective: Liberate Kuwait, and destory as much of the Iraqi forces to deter and refrain them from future aggressions.
Perhaps I may be wrong.. I could try and look somewhere to justify these points, and I'm sure I'd find a thing or too..(I won't as I believe it is wrong to make a point and then take research to prove it, it should be done vice versa) but regardless it does make the better logical argument.
| quote: | | The Iraqi army was nearly annihilated. Even if they had regrouped and stupidly decided to re-invade Kuwait, it would have been another cakewalk. I still fail to see how the highly unlikely scenario of a tired, demoralised, completely decimated Iraqi army regrouping just to walk straight back into certain death is anywhere near justification for what happened. |
Well look, here we are 12 years latter the Iraqi army still suffering heavily from its lose in Kuwait is no where near a "cake walk", and was no where "nearly annihilated", it is very much up and running. Had it been annihilated in fact I think there would have been a much better outcome in Iraq - as Saddam's forces would have been insufficient to quell the numerous uprisings in the North and South Iraq in the few years following the war, don't you think so? This point voids your statement; "The Iraqi army was nearly annihilated"
| quote: | | Nonetheless, we are talking about a specific event here, how was the massacre of retreating soldiers in Iraq necessary (consider all that the word implies) to the liberation of Kuwait? |
First of all don't call it a massacre - it is what we are trying to find out, you could call it in your conclusion a massacre, but you are trying to make a point stating that it is yet revealing your bias.. tips for future.
Back to the point; It is necessary by the following objective:
To deter and refrain Iraq from future agression.
Furthermore I am sure you can find military logic on a purely militaristic background to rationalize this point to you - regroup for a counterattack, or wreak havoc across the retreat bath, or create a diversion where about other units may act. Also one must consider the moral blow such a heavy loss inflicted on the Iraqi's and its demoralizing effects.
| quote: | | If you cannot say that this action was necessary to the liberation of Kuwait (in that Kuwait could not have been liberated without this event occurring) then I suggest you take a look at Principle VI of the Nuremberg Tribunal: |
I did say how this action was necessary, but regardless if you do not believe it was, and are looking at Nuremberg to justify your point you are doing a bad job of it. Nuremberg as you take it out of context, here is in entirety;
Principle VI: b. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
In this context it is clear military targets are not included here, "devastation not justified by military necessity" is an extension of the "wanton destruction" of property, not military units.
| quote: | | If you disagree with me, then you might want to try explaining how, exactly, this massacre was "necessary"? |
Dammit, I do, and I did.
| quote: | | Then you may want to take a look at Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and tell me if this applies to the retreating Iraqi soldiers: |
Ok let me take a look then.
Damn it man! Your worse then Michael Moore in your deception!
Again, the paragraph in its entirty;
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm (4th Geneva Convention; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War)
The exact thing in its completeness;
Article 3:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
Retreating Iraqi troops do not meet this criteria. Laying down your arms means not being an armed force anymore - no uniform, no tank, no guns, no trucks, in this context it is obviously refering to laying down your arms as in SURRENDERING. It would be a FAR reach of even a small child's imagination to try and expand this paragraph to include retreating soldiers... it won't hold up in any honest court for sure.
| quote: | | Do you not agree that these Iraqi soldiers were taking "no active part in the hostilities" and/or that they were "outside of combat"? |
NO!! I DO NOT AGREE; They were not "outside of combat" by sickness, wounds, or detention, and therefore "no active part in the hostilities". Who are you honestly trying to decieve here? Read the laws as they are written, especially if you are trying to make a point with them. The paragraph does not apply to all units "out of combat" but units placed out of "combat" due the the above criteria I listed (sickness, wounds... etc)
| quote: | | It would take a good lawyer, I should suggest, to prove that they were both actively participating in the hostilities and were engaged in combat at the time they bombed by US helicopters. |
Well I'd make a good lawyer then huh?  As I obviously provide they were actively participating in hostilites - or if not that, then at least not exempt from the status of a combatant force.
| quote: | | It's "one-sided" if you wish to call it that, because it is attempting to provide grounds upon which those responsible for the attrocities committed during the war may be brought to trial. The point is, impartial or not, which of the facts presented do you believe to be incorrect? Attacking the authority or impartiality of a source, does not effect the veracity of the information presented by that source. |
No, I did attack there very statements - read my post above I did not critize them on being hippy and one sided (well I did, but in addition to that). I attacked their very arguments, I proved that in fact the "massacre" is not a massacre, and it violates no international law as they claim. Them throwing in the Hague convetion - something that has nothing to do with but culutral property proves that they are mis-informed and are making statements that try to "look smart", yet have no truth to them when actually are exaimened, simply decieving.. sort of like someone I know actually...... 
| quote: | | Besides, even if you continue to protest the legality of this incident, surely you can at least agree with me that this incident was, at the very least, an act of extreme cowardliness? That is, the mass murder of retreating defenseless, soldiers? |
I do protest the legality of it, and would appreciate if you would conceed that the "mass murder" is infact legal.
No I will not say it is cowardly, especially when one could consider the fact that the Iraqi soldiers did retreat - and not fight, which is more cowardly, at least in somes opinions. And since when are soldiers defenseless? Just because they put up a loosey fight does not make this an immoral act, what if they would have put a heavy fight, would it have been justified in your eyes then?
Why if they were no threat, did they not exit combat, lay down their arms and surrender to gain the protected status you believe they carried?
No.
Ok I did read if though, a little... Pure propaganda - their is not enough research done on Uranium-depleted munitions to warrant the conclusions present in the article.
| quote: | | What happened on that road was horrific regardless of whether you declare its moral and legal legitimacy or not. To fire in Uranium tipped munitions that so thoroughly burn out the objects they come into contact with (including people, as evidenced by the charred bodies in those photos) and then to have the radiation from these munitions to stay around even now, more than a decade later and to cause a very sharp rise in the rate of both birth defects and cancer occurances in the near area is morally reprehensible, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it (that is, even if they were correct to attack these Iraqis, the method and strenght of force by which they perpetrated it was completely unjustifiable). |
Again, I agree it is horrific - many things are in war. Firstly at the time (as is still know) the effects of those "horrible" weapons is not known. There is simply not enough research, and therefore we can't say HONESTLY at the time or today that their use was incorrect. Further, if one concludes that these attacks were correct, why would the complete use of force against such a target be "completely unjustifiable". If a target is designated as such, why do you believe forces should be limited to weaker arms as to not fully destory it? Should they have thrown rocks at the convoys from their apaches to even out the odds? What's wrong you picked a fight with the guy whos bigger and stronger then you and got punched in the face? well BOO HOO.
| quote: | So, taking all this into account:
1) How can you say that this act was legal?
2) Even more to the point, how can you say that this act was in any way moral? |
1) I can say it is legal as no international convetion says it is illegal, your points trying to suggest that some international conventions point the action as illegal have been completely refuted once the documents are exaimined in context above.
2) Laws usually follow our morals, and as such this act was morally justified by the laws that govern war. If this is not enough, one can try and justify it using a few points:
a. the use of force was morally justied do to necessaity. Occider raised some good arguments for this point.
b. As a deterant and restriction on possible future Iraqi aggression
c. As reprisal for atrocities commited to Kuwait (again reprisal can be a moral justification, but is not a legal one)
There you go. Enjoy Mr. Moore.
Last edited by Yoepus on Mar-27-2003 at 02:41
|
), but that really is pretty weak justification considering the cost in terms of human lives involved.
tbc ....
