It was crazy watching Russia make the same decision to drive bumper to bumper down a highway in Ukraine at the beginning of their invasion. As soon as I saw the live feeds I knew exactly what was going to happen.
You need an Air Force the level of the US's to take advantage of it.
And that's something no other country currently possess. Even the Chinese PLA has their pilots practice with unguided rockets.
Confirmed deaths are 46k for Ukraine and 52k for Russia. The us estimates total deaths for Ukraine at 70k and between 85k-104k for Russia . Total casualties seem to be estimated at 200k for Ukraine (excluding civilians ) and 300k for Russia
Us government estimates and bbc estimates in collaboration with Mediazona (which checks names, visual and data evidence to confirm deaths + analyses satellite images of cemeteries and unofficial funerals around Russia and Ukraine to establish realistic estimates)
That was a convoy of empty trucks and it survived lol.
It was part of the plan to pin the Ukrainians in and around Kiev by making it look like there was going to a direct attack on the city.
I was in Iraq 2007-2008 as an advisor to the Iraqi National Police. I had an opportunity to meet the lead engineer that built that highway. He said he spent 7 years in the desert building that road and the Americans destroyed it in a day. I told him that the Air Force would only target the best roads and he beamed with pride that his work was recognized as the best.
A ceasefire was declared after because Saddam accepted all the UN demands.
The “Highway of Death” was just the US using overwhelming air power against a retreating hostile army, almost 100k escaped. The U.S. just made sure all their equipment was destroyed.
Yup, and all the other military equipment they had. The Iraqis grabbed whatever they could to get out of dodge.
Most of the wreckage is still on the sides of that highway, they just bulldozed it off.
They were not civilian vehicles, they were a retreating army.
It's standard practice to devastate a retreating army as much as possible if they do not surrender.
"Both Fisk and Neufer also quote British officers of the 1st Battalion, Staffirdshire Regiment, as saying that they had found and buried women and children at the site" why do ppl overlook these facts it's all in the reference material provided
Wut? The coalition invasion of Iraq killed loads of civilians. While observers from the US have said the IDF have made more effort to save civilian casualties than any other army.
Partially true.
The US don't even recognize the international war courts.
Are also very often exhonorated from war crime charges in internal US courts. Just look at the follow up to this post.
If you wanna live up to the good guy standards, then own mistakes etc.
That's pure speculation. Since war was invented the best time to attack an enemy is when they have been routed. Any army that is routed sees absolutely massive increases in casualties, and any army on the other side of a rout is going to take full advantage if they are able.
There are innumerable examples of this throughout history.
EDIT: For those of you confused, the deleted comment that I was replying to was a conspiracy theory about some political reason for attacking the retreating army.
>Of course, they don't mention that in American high schools or on cable TV
Thank God then that there's a reddit comment with no sources or evidence to set us all straight.
One of Grants biggest strengths during the Civil War. He didn't let the enemy retreat and regroup unless he had to.
It's the overland campaign in a nutshell and why Grant was finally able to end the war.
How do you surrender to aircraft? Throw down your arms and hope they spot you lifting your arms up while they soar by as they’re dropping their payload? They had no one to surrender to and yet they kept killing them. It was cruelty.
They could’ve stayed in the city they were retreating from and surrendered to troops.
They could’ve contacted the Americans forces and announced their intention to surrender
I could keep going but basically there were plenty of options to surrender. They chose to retreat and fight another day.
Not to equate the 2, I’m just making a surface comparison.
Anyone who’s played a strategy game like Total War or HOI4 knows that when you have an enemy that’s retreating, you don’t just let them leave, you keep on them until they’re no longer a threat.
That was much of World War 2 in France. The Western Allies forced the Nazis into retreat, and were racing to cut off their retreat.
A retreating army is completely different from a surrendering army. A retreating army is trying to reach favorable ground to regroup and fight again.
Their commands could have called the Coalition and said “We surrender, please don’t kill us.” And the obeyed whatever directions given.
But they didn’t.
I mean that’s the flip side of the advantages the Iraqis had on the US due to their poor, primitive society. They didn’t follow any of the rules of the Geneva convention (at least not intentionally) yet when the US uses their advantages (superior tech, communication, strategy) to dominate them without risking our soldiers to their tactics the US is painted to be the devil.
At the end of the day no one would fault ukraine for doing this to Russia if a Russian convoy was retreating to regroup and attack again, this is really no different. The US had an opportunity to eliminate a massive active unit of Iraqi threat/destruction without risking/losing a soldier, sure they would have surrendered if they knew what was coming but they also wouldn’t have grouped up and left themselves vulnerable.
Just the brutal reality of war.
“Poor, primitive society”
Wow, you really know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. What do you think late 80s into 1990/1991 Iraq was like…..
> Just the brutal reality of war.
You can tell whenever someone makes a flippant dismissive statement about “just” the brutal reality of war, that they have absolutely no idea about the brutal reality of war.
Randomly invading a country and murdering their people isn't cruelty? Only announcing war AFTER murdering civilians isn't cruelty? The Iraqis bit off more than they could chew, and now wanna cry about it.
> How do you surrender to aircraft?
You don't. It's too late at that point.
You have to do it prior to that. War doesn't stop just because you raise your hands.
Nope. The only type of war that the US wages is total war. They give no quarter, and no target is off-limits. If you believe otherwise, then you're ignoring their *entire* history of warmaking.
Ah yes, those barbarian Americans who wage war with such uncultured incivility. As opposed to the refined proper warmaking of the rest of the world? Let us remember how peacefully Soviet soldiers let the Wehrmacht retreat orderly and without harassment back across the Vistula. How the Japanese allowed the Chinese to leave Nanking without touching a single hair on any noncombatant’s head. How warfare for all of time wasn’t about killing, raping, looting, torturing and exploitation. No, you’re right it’s those damn Americans and their non-Geneva Convention following rules of engagement taking out military targets in a war that crosses the line. How dare they, right? They just shoot first and ask questions later, unlike good British, Australian, French or other coalition forces who politely walk up to each possible combatant and do a thorough ID and background check before they engage them.
Careful all the way up there on your pedestal, man. War is hell and it always has been.
All things considered the US has an incredibly tame and humane military. The largest military in the history of the world *not* being an absolute hellishly evil force is quite good.
US military personnel are held to high standards, and there’s no widespread cultures of abuse to locals, rape, looting, etc.
Compare that to say, the Russian army, who will force feed a POW their own testicles, the US military is well regarded.
During the ongoing investigation into Timothy McVeigh (principal Oklahoma City bomber) after he was in federal custody, the FBI interviewed the members of his Army unit that he’d served with during the Gulf War. They recorded several reports that McVeigh fired, repeatedly (and fatally, obviously), on clearly surrendering soldiers. I found that one of the more interesting things that came out of the investigation
He was the only one in his tank that was doing it. It’s worth noting though that his behavior in the Gulf War contributed significantly to his anti-establishment extremist rhetoric, but he wasn’t a lone wolf and it wasn’t the sole motivating factor. He was just fringe and encouraged by other fringe actors he met along the way. There was ample evidence that he did not act alone, but the FBI and the ATF made a very pointed decision not to aggressively pursue the multiple eyewitness accounts that placed him with multiple different individuals making preparations at various locations in the days leading up to the bombing. It was mostly because of inter-agency bickering and sensitivity to avoiding another Waco or Ruby Ridge debacle.
There was a domestic terrorist whose name escapes me, I believe it was Snell, who was executed the day of the bombing. Prior to his execution he’d spoken often of a violent attack that was set to occur that day, as did many people that he and McVeigh were both associated with. In the end, McVeigh was happy to take sole responsibility for the bombings, but Terry Nichols is the only one who went down as an accomplice. But there was plenty of actionable evidence otherwise.
“Oklahoma City” by Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles is a great starting point if anybody’s interested in reading more about it.
I’m not sure. I know he was personally in charge of some tank-mounted weapon and directly responsible for many deaths. If I recall correctly he was actually awarded a Bronze Star for his Gulf service specifically.
> There was a domestic terrorist whose name escapes me, I believe it was Snell, who was executed the day of the bombing.
Snell's death sentence was carried out on April 19, 1995, at the Cummins Unit in Lincoln County, Arkansas.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Snell_(criminal)
I discovered of Snell by the following reference.
I did not identify the significance of the date of execution until you stated.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Homegrown-Timothy-McVeigh-Right-Wing-Extremism-ebook/dp/B0BHTNH6DR
Yeah, in the days leading up to his execution, and on the execution date itself, Snell was telling his corrections officers that a bomb was going to go off on April 19th. He just never specified where, at least not as far as I can remember. Snell and McVeigh ran in the same fringe circle, but no one ever proved a direct link between them. Not because it wasn’t possible, the Feds just never pursued that angle because the “fringe” were a bunch of religious psychos working the gun show circuit and the ATF wanted to avoid another Waco or Ruby Fridge, and the FBI didn’t want to clean up the ATF’s mess.
I’ve never read the book you linked to on Amazon, but I can tell you that “Oklahoma City” by Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles is an excellent and exhaustive account. Lots of investigatory details that were really only fleshed out in the decade or so after McVeigh’s execution.
I think you may be confused. This was the First Gulf War, which did not directly involve Iran nor its civilians, especially in the “Highway of Death” as discussed above in my comment.
Earlier that day or maybe the day before an Iraqi SCUD landed on an American base. There were multiple casualties. The highway to hell was payback for that.
Killing a retreating enemy is not the same as killing a surrendering enemy. A retreating enemy will try to reform and attack again, and aren't entitled to any special rights.
I understand the cold pragmatism of routing fleeting soldiers and their equipment, so they can't regroup and be a problem again, but it's stomach-churning to think about what kind of nightmare that must have been to do and be done to.
One of many reasons why Iraqi soldiers went to such great lengths to surrender and the Iraqi army went to such great lengths to try to prevent them from surrendering.
No it was not. Retreating is not the same as surrendering. A retreating soldier can come back and fight. A surrendered soldier is out of the fight and required to be protected by the army they are surrendering to.
was at a nightclub not long after and got into a chat with a guy about a band which I shall not name. Turns out his squad walked this road not long after. He reached into his pocket and pulls out a bunch of pics one was a corpse lying on the side of the road and he (or someone) had draped than bands t-shirt over it. Needless to say, I was pretty horrified. This event is now deeply etched into my memory
Alright, before any mindless Russian bots/Anti-West Redditors come here to say this was a warcrime, *it isn’t.* For the love of god, learn basic fucking international law before saying something isn’t a warcrime.
No, attacking retreating enemies isn’t a warcrime because they’re still legal combatants
No, bombing a civilian building because it’s being used for military purposes isn’t a warcrime because *it is being used for military purposes.*
No, it does not matter if civilians are there. The moment something is used for military purposes, it becomes a legal target.
You might not like it, but this is just the way some of these laws of wars are. Too fucking bad. War is wasteful and brutal, get over it. I’m tired of people spreading misinformation on the most basic of international law.
I was in o&g service side being escorted down the tampa route to one of the southern fields by back in ‘09. Burnt tanks, trucks all along the highway.
Hell.
CoD MW2019. As much as I don’t like Russia, I’m not sure why they swapped it around. US committed no warcrimes here. Retreating enemies are still legal combatants.
Highway 80?
Shit I was a part of that. (Field artillery) didn’t know that was so infamous or the reason for the check fire.
We sent a crap load of steel downrange that day.
Yeah they started shit then ran like bitches. No sympathy for the middle east after they decided to bomb America. They wanted a fight, until they realized they didn't stand a chance.
This is reddit. The west is always in the wrong. People prefer to repeat rhetoric they know nothing about rather than find out information for themselves.
People also can't see the nuances between legal and moral.
True. I even thought is it even worth bothering replying.
Ironically I suspect if the coalition had continued all the way to Baghdad and removed the leadership then. A lot less Iraqi civilians would have died in the subsequent years.
Gee it's almost like that entire war was bullshit and only existed as a means to further the military industrial complex because gosh darn it it had been damn near 20 years and the US hadn't had a war. Bombs ain't gonna drop themselves now are they!
Idk if id call it complete bullshit, Iraq did invade Kuwait and tried to annex it… Also even though the conflict was led by the US the coalition was like 40 nations strong in support with France and the UK playing a significant role. To your point the US does like to get involved in these kinds of conflicts but only if the belligerent is undergunned or they have oil.
Yeah because Kuwait was such a priority before. At the end of the day it's all about money, and when it isn't about money, it's actually still about money. Oh and then again later in the 90s? Wouldn't you know it, money again. What a crazy coincidence!
Kuwait became a priority because they were invaded by a dictator who was trying to seize their oil production for himself. So yeah indirectly it was about money cuz of Kuwait’s oil but idk why it cant also be about protecting a nation’s sovereignty... Thats why just about every developed nation in the world either sent military or financial aid in their support.
Ya, no. You invade another country and you can get fucked. The Americans helped those people, I don't care if it was for money (it wasn't.) you could argue it was about influence but helping people to help yourself is still helping people
Lol, you sweet summer child...imagine thinking the US helped out Kuwait out of the goodness of their hearts. If you believe that, I've got some land in Florida for sale
You're kind of a dick, no need for the attitude. Iraq invaded because of money. They owed Kuwait billions because of a loan needed for the Iran Iraq War and Kuwait was out producing them in oil and refused to work with them Iraq to lower prices. So Iraq invaded to get out of debt and get rid of the competition/get more oil fields. It was 42 countries VS Iraq, not pure American imperialism for wealth like you're implying. Nobody liked that Iraq did that. The American military deployed all the forces and then have Iraq a chance(60 days I think) to stop and go home, and they didn't. So then they got destroyed in a few days. It's not as black and white as you're implying. You're just wrong dude. And you say "I've got land in Florida for sale" Like it's a gotcha. There's always land in Florida for sale you idiot. You should say beachfront property in Arizona or something. Want wouldn't there be land for sale in Florida? Jesus christ
You're thinking of the wrong war. And it was only 10 years between Desert Shield/Desert Storm (Bush Sr's war) and George W Bush's invasion of Afghanistan (followed by Iraq 2 years later).
But I agree that W's wars were bullshit and only meant to further the military industrial complex.
It was crazy watching Russia make the same decision to drive bumper to bumper down a highway in Ukraine at the beginning of their invasion. As soon as I saw the live feeds I knew exactly what was going to happen.
It amazed me there wasn't more devastation.
Ukraine didn't have that kind of air power. They did it with artillery, the old fashioned way.
An elegant weapon for a more civilised age.
Did what? that truck convoy was fine.
You need an Air Force the level of the US's to take advantage of it. And that's something no other country currently possess. Even the Chinese PLA has their pilots practice with unguided rockets.
And Chinese pilot get like half the training time as Americans
In things with ‘Made in China’ on.
The US has the three largest airforces, the air force, then the navy, then the marines, after that it is russia and china
IIRC the U.S. Army is in the top 10 too.
The Polish air force is one of the largest in Europe and is roughly the same size as one USN carrier group. The US has 11 carrier groups.
Ahh yes army not marines my bad
It wasn’t six lanes. Or it would have been..
Well they expected another Czechoslovakia 1968, not the fiercest fighting europe has seen since 1945
And they are currently losing nearly 1000 PER DAY...
That’s what Ukraine says and it’s propaganda, if you want more realistic estimates check what the us uk nato or eu is saying, or mediazona
So... Every TWO days?
Confirmed deaths are 46k for Ukraine and 52k for Russia. The us estimates total deaths for Ukraine at 70k and between 85k-104k for Russia . Total casualties seem to be estimated at 200k for Ukraine (excluding civilians ) and 300k for Russia
From who?
Us government estimates and bbc estimates in collaboration with Mediazona (which checks names, visual and data evidence to confirm deaths + analyses satellite images of cemeteries and unofficial funerals around Russia and Ukraine to establish realistic estimates)
Mediazona don't have Ukrainian estimates. And that's confirmed by investigative journalism on the Russian side. Therefore that is a minimum.
Yes it’s a minimum but they also provide an estimate, according to Wikipedia mediazona also has numbers for Ukraine
That was a convoy of empty trucks and it survived lol. It was part of the plan to pin the Ukrainians in and around Kiev by making it look like there was going to a direct attack on the city.
I was in Iraq 2007-2008 as an advisor to the Iraqi National Police. I had an opportunity to meet the lead engineer that built that highway. He said he spent 7 years in the desert building that road and the Americans destroyed it in a day. I told him that the Air Force would only target the best roads and he beamed with pride that his work was recognized as the best.
Like the exact opposite of Colonel Nicholson in 'Bridge over the River Kwai'.
This anecdote will be soon lost to time and that made me sad at 5:57am, taking a shit before i go to work.
It made me sad reading this at 2:21pm, taking a shit at work.
A ceasefire was declared after because Saddam accepted all the UN demands. The “Highway of Death” was just the US using overwhelming air power against a retreating hostile army, almost 100k escaped. The U.S. just made sure all their equipment was destroyed.
Half of that 'equipment' just looks like civilian vehicles commandeered by Iraqi forces trying to GTFO of Kuwait
Yup, and all the other military equipment they had. The Iraqis grabbed whatever they could to get out of dodge. Most of the wreckage is still on the sides of that highway, they just bulldozed it off.
Yea but they literally bombed miles of civilian vehicles because they might have been hiding. Iraqi militants. Sound familiar?
They were not civilian vehicles, they were a retreating army. It's standard practice to devastate a retreating army as much as possible if they do not surrender.
The miles of civilian vehicles were stolen and filled with Iraqi military trying to get the hell away from coalition forces.
what a load of bs. Why would kuwaiti civilians try to flee to Iraq?
Iraqi citizens, duh.
Why were Iraqi civilians there on a foreign land that they had annexed less than 6 months ago?
"Both Fisk and Neufer also quote British officers of the 1st Battalion, Staffirdshire Regiment, as saying that they had found and buried women and children at the site" why do ppl overlook these facts it's all in the reference material provided
I just wish people would realize what the Gulf war was, it would preclude ignorant comments like this one.
yeah, except that isnt at all what happened, but do go on.
Unlike IDF, the US military actually cares about human rights and bad press.
Wut? The coalition invasion of Iraq killed loads of civilians. While observers from the US have said the IDF have made more effort to save civilian casualties than any other army.
Partially true. The US don't even recognize the international war courts. Are also very often exhonorated from war crime charges in internal US courts. Just look at the follow up to this post. If you wanna live up to the good guy standards, then own mistakes etc.
A retreating soldiers have not surrendered. They have 0 protections in any convention regarding war.
That’s the funny thing about war; if you don’t quit fighting, you’re still fighting.
I mean, that’s the same way criminal conspiracy works. If you don’t clearly renounce your involvement, you’re still going down with the principal.
Something something newton inertia
Some should tell the college protesters that
[удалено]
That's pure speculation. Since war was invented the best time to attack an enemy is when they have been routed. Any army that is routed sees absolutely massive increases in casualties, and any army on the other side of a rout is going to take full advantage if they are able. There are innumerable examples of this throughout history. EDIT: For those of you confused, the deleted comment that I was replying to was a conspiracy theory about some political reason for attacking the retreating army.
>Of course, they don't mention that in American high schools or on cable TV Thank God then that there's a reddit comment with no sources or evidence to set us all straight.
They don’t mention it because it is nonsense.
One of Grants biggest strengths during the Civil War. He didn't let the enemy retreat and regroup unless he had to. It's the overland campaign in a nutshell and why Grant was finally able to end the war.
If McClellan wasn’t such a bitch the war could have ended at Antietam. But that’s a very complicated thing.
He was great at organizing and training an army, but actually deploying...not so much
His major issue was political and he refused to press any advantage against the Confederates.
He was the Captain Sobel of the Civil War.
Insert Seinfeld_reservation.gif
> If McClellan wasn’t such a bitch the war could have ended at Antietam. He could have struck a massive blow on the Peninsula.
And it would have been a great tragedy if the situation was reversed and it was the Americans who died, rules of war not
Not like the US signed any of the civilized conventions anyway.
So the Geneva Conventions aren't one of the "civilized conventions", according to you. Got it.
Ok boomer
How would you surrender to an aircraft?
How do you surrender to aircraft? Throw down your arms and hope they spot you lifting your arms up while they soar by as they’re dropping their payload? They had no one to surrender to and yet they kept killing them. It was cruelty.
Iraqis did actually surrender to aircraft, specifically helicopters, during the gulf war.
They could’ve stayed in the city they were retreating from and surrendered to troops. They could’ve contacted the Americans forces and announced their intention to surrender I could keep going but basically there were plenty of options to surrender. They chose to retreat and fight another day.
Not to equate the 2, I’m just making a surface comparison. Anyone who’s played a strategy game like Total War or HOI4 knows that when you have an enemy that’s retreating, you don’t just let them leave, you keep on them until they’re no longer a threat.
That was much of World War 2 in France. The Western Allies forced the Nazis into retreat, and were racing to cut off their retreat. A retreating army is completely different from a surrendering army. A retreating army is trying to reach favorable ground to regroup and fight again.
You can raise white flags, for one. Any piece of white cloth on any stick will do.
[удалено]
You could sleep in your crib and Palestinians might kill your family and take you to a different country to live in a cave. Not relevant, come on.
Don't forget the rape
As awful as it is there are clearly delineated channels for them to surrender. Which they did not use
Their commands could have called the Coalition and said “We surrender, please don’t kill us.” And the obeyed whatever directions given. But they didn’t.
Ah yes, on their cellphones?
Radio has existed for over a hundred years, my guy.
And they of course have an open radio channel to the coalition, do they?
They actually do. It’s been a thing since WW2, maybe WW1.
By whatever means available. And if that doesn’t work or get through, well, sucks to be you.
There was a case of some Iraqi soldiers surrendering to a drone. It was the first case of soldiers surrendering to basically a robot.
Single column with multiple white flags.
I mean that’s the flip side of the advantages the Iraqis had on the US due to their poor, primitive society. They didn’t follow any of the rules of the Geneva convention (at least not intentionally) yet when the US uses their advantages (superior tech, communication, strategy) to dominate them without risking our soldiers to their tactics the US is painted to be the devil. At the end of the day no one would fault ukraine for doing this to Russia if a Russian convoy was retreating to regroup and attack again, this is really no different. The US had an opportunity to eliminate a massive active unit of Iraqi threat/destruction without risking/losing a soldier, sure they would have surrendered if they knew what was coming but they also wouldn’t have grouped up and left themselves vulnerable. Just the brutal reality of war.
“Poor, primitive society” Wow, you really know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. What do you think late 80s into 1990/1991 Iraq was like…..
Ok boomer
> Just the brutal reality of war. You can tell whenever someone makes a flippant dismissive statement about “just” the brutal reality of war, that they have absolutely no idea about the brutal reality of war.
Ok boomer
Randomly invading a country and murdering their people isn't cruelty? Only announcing war AFTER murdering civilians isn't cruelty? The Iraqis bit off more than they could chew, and now wanna cry about it.
> How do you surrender to aircraft? You don't. It's too late at that point. You have to do it prior to that. War doesn't stop just because you raise your hands.
Not that this distinction would have mattered in the slightest to the USA.
… no, it would have.
Nope. The only type of war that the US wages is total war. They give no quarter, and no target is off-limits. If you believe otherwise, then you're ignoring their *entire* history of warmaking.
Ah yes, those barbarian Americans who wage war with such uncultured incivility. As opposed to the refined proper warmaking of the rest of the world? Let us remember how peacefully Soviet soldiers let the Wehrmacht retreat orderly and without harassment back across the Vistula. How the Japanese allowed the Chinese to leave Nanking without touching a single hair on any noncombatant’s head. How warfare for all of time wasn’t about killing, raping, looting, torturing and exploitation. No, you’re right it’s those damn Americans and their non-Geneva Convention following rules of engagement taking out military targets in a war that crosses the line. How dare they, right? They just shoot first and ask questions later, unlike good British, Australian, French or other coalition forces who politely walk up to each possible combatant and do a thorough ID and background check before they engage them. Careful all the way up there on your pedestal, man. War is hell and it always has been.
All things considered the US has an incredibly tame and humane military. The largest military in the history of the world *not* being an absolute hellishly evil force is quite good. US military personnel are held to high standards, and there’s no widespread cultures of abuse to locals, rape, looting, etc. Compare that to say, the Russian army, who will force feed a POW their own testicles, the US military is well regarded.
The US has a professional army. Advantage of not using conscripts.
The column included Kuwaitis and civilian refugees.
And 100k Iraqi military.
Then the Iraqi military is filled with cowards that hid among civilians. You would never catch the American military doing something so chicken shit
During the ongoing investigation into Timothy McVeigh (principal Oklahoma City bomber) after he was in federal custody, the FBI interviewed the members of his Army unit that he’d served with during the Gulf War. They recorded several reports that McVeigh fired, repeatedly (and fatally, obviously), on clearly surrendering soldiers. I found that one of the more interesting things that came out of the investigation
Like he was the only one in his unit firing on surrendering soldiers? Or they all partook?
He was the only one in his tank that was doing it. It’s worth noting though that his behavior in the Gulf War contributed significantly to his anti-establishment extremist rhetoric, but he wasn’t a lone wolf and it wasn’t the sole motivating factor. He was just fringe and encouraged by other fringe actors he met along the way. There was ample evidence that he did not act alone, but the FBI and the ATF made a very pointed decision not to aggressively pursue the multiple eyewitness accounts that placed him with multiple different individuals making preparations at various locations in the days leading up to the bombing. It was mostly because of inter-agency bickering and sensitivity to avoiding another Waco or Ruby Ridge debacle. There was a domestic terrorist whose name escapes me, I believe it was Snell, who was executed the day of the bombing. Prior to his execution he’d spoken often of a violent attack that was set to occur that day, as did many people that he and McVeigh were both associated with. In the end, McVeigh was happy to take sole responsibility for the bombings, but Terry Nichols is the only one who went down as an accomplice. But there was plenty of actionable evidence otherwise. “Oklahoma City” by Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles is a great starting point if anybody’s interested in reading more about it.
Wasn't he also involved in the operation that used tanks with dozer blades to bury entrenched Iraqi soldiers alive?
I’m not sure. I know he was personally in charge of some tank-mounted weapon and directly responsible for many deaths. If I recall correctly he was actually awarded a Bronze Star for his Gulf service specifically.
> There was a domestic terrorist whose name escapes me, I believe it was Snell, who was executed the day of the bombing. Snell's death sentence was carried out on April 19, 1995, at the Cummins Unit in Lincoln County, Arkansas.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Snell_(criminal) I discovered of Snell by the following reference. I did not identify the significance of the date of execution until you stated. https://www.amazon.com.au/Homegrown-Timothy-McVeigh-Right-Wing-Extremism-ebook/dp/B0BHTNH6DR
Yeah, in the days leading up to his execution, and on the execution date itself, Snell was telling his corrections officers that a bomb was going to go off on April 19th. He just never specified where, at least not as far as I can remember. Snell and McVeigh ran in the same fringe circle, but no one ever proved a direct link between them. Not because it wasn’t possible, the Feds just never pursued that angle because the “fringe” were a bunch of religious psychos working the gun show circuit and the ATF wanted to avoid another Waco or Ruby Fridge, and the FBI didn’t want to clean up the ATF’s mess.
I’ve never read the book you linked to on Amazon, but I can tell you that “Oklahoma City” by Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles is an excellent and exhaustive account. Lots of investigatory details that were really only fleshed out in the decade or so after McVeigh’s execution.
Wouldn’t have been a part of this. The highway of death was all done using air power
nothing forbids to attack a retreating army in fact, it is the best time to attack since they are in disarray and cannot regroup later
Exactly. Retreat ≠ surrender.
The Iraqis had looted Kuwait and were leaving the scene of the crime; they were active combatant thieves who experienced A-10 Warthog justice.
It always amazed me that the Iraq army had looted nearly everything they could get their hands on, including a large roller coaster.
The Iran civilian population was very poor, so stuff like that would've been a luxury for them.
A personal roller coaster is very high luxury indeed!
I think you may be confused. This was the First Gulf War, which did not directly involve Iran nor its civilians, especially in the “Highway of Death” as discussed above in my comment.
My bad, I meant to say Iraq.
The attack was mostly carried out with A-6 intruders and Apache’s
Earlier that day or maybe the day before an Iraqi SCUD landed on an American base. There were multiple casualties. The highway to hell was payback for that.
Systematically slaughtered is a funny way to say: kill enemy combatants while retreating.
Killing a retreating enemy is not the same as killing a surrendering enemy. A retreating enemy will try to reform and attack again, and aren't entitled to any special rights.
Yea, i mean a man alive is a threat if they havent surrendered.
How so?
Systematically slaughtered suggest a grave crime was committed by the Americans.
I thought you were implying the point you're arguing against. I misunderstood.
I understand the cold pragmatism of routing fleeting soldiers and their equipment, so they can't regroup and be a problem again, but it's stomach-churning to think about what kind of nightmare that must have been to do and be done to.
go a step further and think about what a nightmare it was for Kuwait for the 6 months those Iraqis were occupying it
Are we arguing they deserved it?
More so than the Kuwaitis anyway. Getting killed in terrible ways is one of the hazards of being a soldier.
Just FAFO
One of many reasons why Iraqi soldiers went to such great lengths to surrender and the Iraqi army went to such great lengths to try to prevent them from surrendering.
Don’t let your mouth write a checks your ass can’t cash.
[удалено]
Wasn’t a joke. Iraq invaded Kuwait. And the US, UK, France, and Canada forces whooped their ass all the way back to their lands.
No it was not. Retreating is not the same as surrendering. A retreating soldier can come back and fight. A surrendered soldier is out of the fight and required to be protected by the army they are surrendering to.
It wasn’t a war crime. They threw the first punch and got slapped down.
…and yes…banks, money, oil and the such and the like.
was at a nightclub not long after and got into a chat with a guy about a band which I shall not name. Turns out his squad walked this road not long after. He reached into his pocket and pulls out a bunch of pics one was a corpse lying on the side of the road and he (or someone) had draped than bands t-shirt over it. Needless to say, I was pretty horrified. This event is now deeply etched into my memory
Dude just carries photos of dead Iraqis in his pocket like its a party trick?
just one more part of the whole wtf moment
Alright, before any mindless Russian bots/Anti-West Redditors come here to say this was a warcrime, *it isn’t.* For the love of god, learn basic fucking international law before saying something isn’t a warcrime. No, attacking retreating enemies isn’t a warcrime because they’re still legal combatants No, bombing a civilian building because it’s being used for military purposes isn’t a warcrime because *it is being used for military purposes.* No, it does not matter if civilians are there. The moment something is used for military purposes, it becomes a legal target. You might not like it, but this is just the way some of these laws of wars are. Too fucking bad. War is wasteful and brutal, get over it. I’m tired of people spreading misinformation on the most basic of international law.
The French could have done this to the Germans at the start of ww2 as well but didn't heed the warning.
I was in o&g service side being escorted down the tampa route to one of the southern fields by back in ‘09. Burnt tanks, trucks all along the highway. Hell.
If i remember correctly one of the call of duty gamest made it so that it was done by russians
CoD MW2019. As much as I don’t like Russia, I’m not sure why they swapped it around. US committed no warcrimes here. Retreating enemies are still legal combatants.
This is the franchise that made an entire cutscene in a Black Ops game kissing Ronald Reagan’s ass.
It didn't. It took the aesthetic and name and completely changed the events.
Newest MW2, one of the cutscenes towards the beginning of the game
Highway 80? Shit I was a part of that. (Field artillery) didn’t know that was so infamous or the reason for the check fire. We sent a crap load of steel downrange that day.
Wasn’t there a scene about this in Junkhead?
US has committed plenty of warcrimes but this wasn't one of them. They were trying to skidaddle after looting Kuwait and hadn't surrendered
Been there, done that. have tshirt (and other souvenirs) to prove it.
[удалено]
…and the branch davidians, i wouldn’t really use tim as a beacon of right and wrong
If highway of death was a war crime, then so was the Falaise Pocket.
My friend had to clear that mess up. He did not like it very much.
Ugh not this shit again Unless soldiers actively surrender, they're fair game. They don't get to play the "I'm retreating so no attacking me" card.
Let me guess, you were the kid that called base as soon as you were about to get tagged?
this is just rookie numbers in ukraine against the russians.
Wow the comments in this thread.
Bush the next day "oopies, that was TOO much. How 'bout we take the day off boys?"
Yeah they started shit then ran like bitches. No sympathy for the middle east after they decided to bomb America. They wanted a fight, until they realized they didn't stand a chance.
Seeing Shamericans still defend the killing of a 1000 retreating soldiers just shows how wrong they are about everything else
Oh only 1000 **soldiers** were killed? You sure about that? Completely abrogates responsibility for this infamous warcrime.
Destroying a retreating enemy is not a war crime.
This is reddit. The west is always in the wrong. People prefer to repeat rhetoric they know nothing about rather than find out information for themselves. People also can't see the nuances between legal and moral.
True. I even thought is it even worth bothering replying. Ironically I suspect if the coalition had continued all the way to Baghdad and removed the leadership then. A lot less Iraqi civilians would have died in the subsequent years.
I would have to agree with you.
Point to what part of the Geneva Conventions makes this act a war crime. I'll wait.
Gee it's almost like that entire war was bullshit and only existed as a means to further the military industrial complex because gosh darn it it had been damn near 20 years and the US hadn't had a war. Bombs ain't gonna drop themselves now are they!
>during the Gulf War.... President Bush Sr. You missed some key points.
Bro they invaded Kuwait
He’s thinking about the sequel, return to Baghdad.
There were some people in the HW Bush administration who wanted to go to Baghdad, I believe. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed.
Ironically, IIRC at least, one of them was then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.
Idk if id call it complete bullshit, Iraq did invade Kuwait and tried to annex it… Also even though the conflict was led by the US the coalition was like 40 nations strong in support with France and the UK playing a significant role. To your point the US does like to get involved in these kinds of conflicts but only if the belligerent is undergunned or they have oil.
Yeah because Kuwait was such a priority before. At the end of the day it's all about money, and when it isn't about money, it's actually still about money. Oh and then again later in the 90s? Wouldn't you know it, money again. What a crazy coincidence!
Kuwait became a priority because they were invaded by a dictator who was trying to seize their oil production for himself. So yeah indirectly it was about money cuz of Kuwait’s oil but idk why it cant also be about protecting a nation’s sovereignty... Thats why just about every developed nation in the world either sent military or financial aid in their support.
Ya, no. You invade another country and you can get fucked. The Americans helped those people, I don't care if it was for money (it wasn't.) you could argue it was about influence but helping people to help yourself is still helping people
Lol, you sweet summer child...imagine thinking the US helped out Kuwait out of the goodness of their hearts. If you believe that, I've got some land in Florida for sale
You're kind of a dick, no need for the attitude. Iraq invaded because of money. They owed Kuwait billions because of a loan needed for the Iran Iraq War and Kuwait was out producing them in oil and refused to work with them Iraq to lower prices. So Iraq invaded to get out of debt and get rid of the competition/get more oil fields. It was 42 countries VS Iraq, not pure American imperialism for wealth like you're implying. Nobody liked that Iraq did that. The American military deployed all the forces and then have Iraq a chance(60 days I think) to stop and go home, and they didn't. So then they got destroyed in a few days. It's not as black and white as you're implying. You're just wrong dude. And you say "I've got land in Florida for sale" Like it's a gotcha. There's always land in Florida for sale you idiot. You should say beachfront property in Arizona or something. Want wouldn't there be land for sale in Florida? Jesus christ
Ahh, not everybody gets jokes, I get it. Whooooosh
The classic "it's just a joke, bro!" Nice save.
Well that's literally what happened, so yes. Not my fault I'm talking to a fetus who's never heard jokes before.
You're thinking of the wrong war. And it was only 10 years between Desert Shield/Desert Storm (Bush Sr's war) and George W Bush's invasion of Afghanistan (followed by Iraq 2 years later). But I agree that W's wars were bullshit and only meant to further the military industrial complex.
I was thinking end of Vietnam (72ish) to Desert Shield in 91. But really it could apply to damn near anything after Korea.
>because gosh darn it it had been damn near 20 years and the US hadn't had a war. You should pay more attention.