Thousands of Russians volunteer to defend Iraq

[Toad]

Originally posted by miko2d

 I hope they do not remember that. If they do remember that we shot the retreating troops (who started withdrawal two days before US stikes rather than being amassed on Saudi border), or that we plowed and buried alive tens of thousands of peasants that offered no resistance, they might just decide to stand and die fighting rather than try surrendering and be slaughtered.

 miko

IIRC, the "retreating troops" had been advised multiple times by psyops that they would be left alone if they abandoned their vehicles and weapons and walked home. Probably tough to do though; an AK strapped across your back and a microwave under your left arm and a TV under your right makes for a long walk.

As for the "peasants" in the trenches, they were psyop-ed the same way. I know one of my good friends in Special Ops C-130's did some of that work. They were leaflet-ed multiple times, advised to abandon their positions within a period of time (three days prior) and then the postitions would be destroyed. He said it took one or two examples and after that the leaflets were all that were needed.

[Raubvogel]

I saw the so-called "highway of death" firsthand you tard (not more than a few hours after it happened).  There were very few bodies. The goal was not to kill people, the goal was to destroy material, which we did quite well.

One thing always sticks with me from the Gulf War....

I was cruising along in a UH-1H, sitting behind a M60D machine gun. We spot about 10-15 Iraqis waving a white flag. We do a slow orbit over them, then land a safe distance away. We call one of the group over. When asked why they are surrendering, he says..."because President Bush says the war is over."


These people have no desire to defend Saddam Hussein. He doesn't even feed them half the time! Some of you people really make me laugh. All-knowing behind your cathode ray tubes.

[Raubvogel]

Hey handsomehunk.....those forces had already violated UN resolution 660 by not retreating from Kuwait when they were given the chance. The resolution reads "DEMANDS that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990."


Guess what genius....they didn't do it. Therefore they were in violation of that directive...therefore it didn't apply....try again...

[GRUNHERZ]

So what does Geneva say about 1991-1995 behavior of UN troops in my country? Or about Srebrenica?

[Raubvogel]

Originally posted by GScholz
Hey dickhead, it doesn't matter, the Geneva Convention article 3 applies to ALL retreating forces not directly involved in combat. UN resolution or no.

Were they returning fire? Were you there? Hmm? Hmm?

So you admit you were just throwing that UN resolution out there to look impressive? Cause it certainly doesn't apply one bit to the drivel you posted.

[Raubvogel]

Gscholz, you are so full of toejam. Have you actually read Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, or doesn't your local Party Chairperson allow you to do that?

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

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.


So...at what point did the Iraqis driving the T-72s back to Baghdad lay down their arms?

Dipshit. At least research your pathetic arguments.

[Raubvogel]

Ummm....does that supercede that first part about laying down their arms? hmm....hmmm??

No survivors? Most of the vehicles had long since been abandoned when they were destroyed. There were very few bodies. But who is to believe my first-person account? Better to believe a media source!

Define "Ceased to take part in hostilities"

Ever heard of "Falling back and regrouping"...??

To me "Ceased to take part in hostilities" means that you climb out of your Main Battle Tank, throw down your arms, and walk away from the fight totally unarmed. I can assure you that this was not the case.

But I'm sure that you have already formed your own deluded opinions about what happened thousands of miles away from where you were.

[Raubvogel]

One more thing, and then I'm going to sleep.

I love how someone who was THOUSANDS of MILES away from an incident can argue with someone who was diddlyING FEET away from the toejam when it happened. Buy a clue dude, those folks had NO INCLINATION WHATSOEVER to surrender. If they had wanted to surrender, they could have easily done so, like the thousands of their countrymen who had done the same. If they died....oh diddlying well. They had ample opportunity to lay down their arms and move away from the battlefield. When you try to drive away from the battlefield in a Main Battle Tank, that tends to tell the other guys that "hey I'm still dangerous." At any point, those formations could have easily exited their vehicles and begun walking toward American positions. They would have been treated the same as the other thousands that surrendered to us. But you know what? They didn't. They choose to continue driving their armored vehicles fully armed towards Baghdad. Was our Air Force supposed to be clairvoyant? Were we mind readers?

[davidpt40]

I imagine the consequences of retreating AND losing your main battle tank before being engaged was probably execution in the Iraqi Army.  Both sides were just following orders, but that doesn't make it right nor moral.

But the biggest blunder of the war was when Shwarzkopf let the Republican Guard escape then he blatantly lied about his original objectives.  Its alright to make mistakes, but I hope that fat bastard has a heart attack soon for lying.  I've heard that he was unable to control his emotions and just ran around screaming anyways.

[Magic]

Originally posted by Oedipus
lol ...

Comrade ; )


And I insist that this topic be read after starting this song....  

It adds ambience


http://www.sovmusic.ru/mp3/nesokr.mp3

Yup, it sure does... catchy tune. Loved the chorus.  Makes me want to log on and go fly a Yak for the Motherland.

Regards,

[GRUNHERZ]

You know Gscholz it's funny how civilized europe has such complicated rules for war but does nothing substantial for some 4-5 years when obviously thousands of innocent civilians are being slaughtered right under their huge stinky french type noses...  So please understand that I really dont value the european view on whats acceptable during wartime... OK?

[Raubvogel]

Originally posted by GScholz

 The laying down of arms still qualifies, but is no longer a requirement. Taking no direct action is now enough.


-They were not required to surrender. They should have been allowed to retreat to Iraq after being declared non-combatants.

So you're saying that if you are engaged in battle and suddenly stand up, turn around, and start walking away with your rifle still at your side then you suddenly can't be shot without violating the Geneva Convention? That's some funny toejam. "Ok Akhbar, turn the tank around and start driving back to Baghdad." "Americans, please be stopping the shooting, we are noncombatants now!"

Who exactly is responsible for "declaring non-combatants"? Do the soldiers ask for a "time-out"?

[sling322]

Yeah...but you only get 3 time-outs per half.  Unless the war goes into overtime where you get extra ones.

[Toad]

Raub, it's easy to understand, really.

If you are the US, anyone not in the act of actually shooting at you is a non-combatant and you must let them go.

However, if you are fighting against the US, anyone who looks, sounds or appears to be an American is fair game at any time in any circumstance.

There, did that clear it up for ya?  

[Mathman]

Gscholz,

Check your sources.  You might be surprised to see that the US did not ratify the two protocols amended to the Geneva Convention in 1977.

The Red Cross movement (later renamed the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) spearheaded the first Geneva Convention in 1864. The purpose of this first treaty was to protect wounded soldiers and those caring for them during times of war. Twelve nations signed the initial document. Over the following decades, more countries agreed to the convention.

In 1882, U.S. President Chester Arthur signed the treaty, making the U.S. the 32nd nation to do so. The U.S. Senate ratified it shortly thereafter. At the same time, the American Association of the Red Cross was formed (many nations had begun to create their own Red Cross organizations in concert with the first Geneva Convention).

The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.

According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.

So, again, how did the US violate the Geneva Convention it ratified and signed?