Some Soldiers Already Surrendering.....

FuryNSX · 12 March 2003

No confirmation on the truth behind this report, but.......

Some Iraqi Soldiers Surrender

(Sorry if this is a repost, but I didn't see it when searching.)

------------------
1995 NSX-T
1999 3.2TL
2001 Odyssey ..........SOLD!!!
1992 SC400
2003 Chevy Suburban LT

NeoNSX · 13 March 2003

... because they thought the war had already started.

shows you how good their communications are; that was a weakness in the first Gulf War. The US cut the head off the body in terms of severing commanders from their troops. I can't believe saddam hasn't fixed this.

Interesting read. I've also read how commanders have been told to shoot anyone surrendering (to avoid a repeat of the last Gulf War).

Tom Larkins · 13 March 2003

Originally posted by NeoNSX:

shows you how good their communications are; that was a weakness in the first Gulf War. The US cut the head off the body in terms of severing commanders from their troops. I can't believe saddam hasn't fixed this.

Saddam couldn't find his butt with both hands!! Heard reports tonight on FOX that some of the military leadership in his own country are thinking about removing him internally b/f a war starts. That would be nice. I'm hopeful we don't have to go to war, but if we do this think is going to be a done deal quick IMO.

Him and BinLadin should be gutted w/a rusty spoon.

Brian2by2 · 13 March 2003

I raise the bull*@&! flag on that article...too many mispelled words, used the word "motley" twice in a less than one page report, and spelt defense wrong (unless thats how Brits spell it??)

I mean I understand their stupid, but I don't think they're that stupid and low and behold they think they can win!! LOL

I'm calling it now: this war lasts 2 months, no American/British casualties and Sadaam will NOT be allowed to live this time. Searching for him is what will end up dragging out the war.

4AU4LIFE · 14 March 2003

I didn't know 'spelt' was a word ?

------------------
92 RED/BLACK 5-SPEED

Ojas · 14 March 2003

I agree with Brian regarding the BS-ness of this article.

This is a one of those tabloid-magazine/fluf newspapers, right? Sure looks like it based on their home page and all the casino ads.

------------------
ojaspatel.com/nsx

[This message has been edited by Ojas (edited 13 March 2003).]

Brian2by2 · 14 March 2003

I didn't know 'spelt' was a word ?

wasn't aware that I was writing a publicly written expository/informative article to be read by a mass

thought this was a forum

lemansnsx · 14 March 2003

Originally posted by Brian2by2:
I mean I understand their stupid

Forum or article for the masses aside I believe that you may have meant they're or they are

Ok, I really only picked this nit so I could hit the nice round number of 800 posts

lemansnsx · 14 March 2003

Originally posted by Brian2by2:
I raise the bull*@&! flag on that article...too many mispelled words, used the word "motley" twice in a less than one page report, and spelt defense wrong (unless thats how Brits spell it??)

Forgot a couple of points:
One of his uses of "motley" was a quote.
"Defence" is indeed the correct spelling when referring to the British government agency.
How could you imagine that the article is "bull*@&!" when it links directly to the newspaper's own site? Never mind... I really only posted again to ruin that nice round 800 post number...

mlambert890 · 14 March 2003

That story looks fully legit to me and I don't doubt it.

You gotta feel bad for these poor bastards. Imagine being an Iraqi male and being forced to fight for that fat bastard under penalty of death or (even worse) the death of your family?

It's a shame that it will mainly be these guys taking casualties before we would ever even get near Saddam.

Incidentally, I didn't see anything misspelled in that article.

Viper Driver · 14 March 2003

Originally posted by NeoNSX:
I've also read how commanders have been told to shoot anyone surrendering (to avoid a repeat of the last Gulf War).

Where did you read this? I seriously doubt that our ground troops have been told to exterminate Iraqi soldiers because we don't want to deal with taking prisoners. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a little thing called the Geneva Conventions that may prevent us from doing that. Also, it's not in our best interests to further incite the Arab world by mass killings of surrendering/disarmed Iraqis.

Chuck

snapper · 14 March 2003

I think it's Iraq's Commanders. Not ours.

sabashioyaki · 14 March 2003

Originally posted by Viper Driver:
Correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong, it's similar to what Hitler and Stalin did.

Viper Driver · 14 March 2003

Originally posted by sabashioyaki:
You're wrong, it's similar to what Hitler and Stalin did.

The Geneva Conventions happened AFTER WWII.

So, are you comparing our current situation with Iraq with 1940s nazis and communist dictators? Enquiring minds want to know.

Also, can you put your money where your mouth is and show me where U.S. soldiers are being told to kill surrendering Iraqi soldiers? As one of those soldiers, I'd really like to know where I can read this.

[This message has been edited by Viper Driver (edited 14 March 2003).]

Viper Driver · 14 March 2003

Originally posted by snapper:
I think it's Iraq's Commanders. Not ours.

Okay....I follow you. That would make a lot more sense. Stalin and Hitler did kill their own troops (especially Stalin re: Enemy at the Gates, a great movie) and Saddam has already shown a propensity to opress his own troops in even more horrible ways than this.

If this is what you meant, NeoNSX, then I understand. However, if you think that U.S. troops are being told to kill surrendering Iraqis, then I've got a big problem with that.

Paul65K · 14 March 2003

Originally posted by Viper Driver:
The Geneva Conventions happened AFTER WWII.

Actually the geneva convention was signed on Sept, 4 1901. Jean Henri Dunant, a Swiss National was the primary architect of the proposal and died in 1910.

A complete text of the convention can be found at :http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899b.htm.

Just wanted to help NSXTASY who would have certainly pointed this out, I just have a time advantage this week as I am in Amsterdam. Dont think I'll ever get to 8000+ posts though! Keep up the good work all.

------------------
97 NSX-T Black/Tan
00 Mercedes 430CLK (Cab)
93 Cadillac Allante (Northstar) - For Sale
98 GMC Sierra
00 HD Dyna WideGlide
83 Cessna 303 (Crusader)

NeoNSX · 14 March 2003

Oops, I didn't clarify: i was referring to Iraqi Commanders threating their soliders if they surrender.

Brian2by2: Saddam isn't stupid. His plan in the first Gulf War was to force a repeat of Vietnam; lots of casualities and the US public cries out against the war. He setup lots of traps, burning oil pits, dug-in tanks, and bottlenecks expecting a ground attack. He didn't expect the airstrikes to last more than three days. (boy was he wrong!

)

His current plan now is still shrewed; he has handed out free AK47's to the public and has even situated military resources near civilian areas. He knows he needs to create as many US solider OR "civilian" casualities as possible... then the US public will want to discontinue the war.

That's not stupidity; that's cunning.

(BTW, i dislike saddam... i don't admire him in anyway, but he's not an insane/stupid man)

Phew... too much seriousness for one post... anyone got some new NSX rims worth posting?

Tom Larkins · 14 March 2003

Originally posted by NeoNSX:

Saddam isn't stupid. His plan in the first Gulf War was to force a repeat of Vietnam; lots of casualities and the US public cries out against the war. He setup lots of traps, burning oil pits, dug-in tanks, and bottlenecks expecting a ground attack. He didn't expect the airstrikes to last more than three days. (boy was he wrong!

)

His current plan now is still shrewed; he has handed out free AK47's to the public and has even situated military resources near civilian areas. He knows he needs to create as many US solider OR "civilian" casualities as possible... then the US public will want to discontinue the war.

That's not stupidity; that's cunning.

(BTW, i dislike saddam... i don't admire him in anyway, but he's not an insane/stupid man)

IMO, Saddam is stupid and he knows his time is short. His methods have been likley forced on people that may have no choice but to fight for him. These unfortunate citizens by choice or not don't stand a chance against skilled ground forces if it comes to that. We've heard this all before.

Remember the 1st time.

"The 4th largest army in the world, their men and tanks are highly trained and battle tested after years of combat w/Iran" The air power alone broke them mentally & physically in a few days and it will happen again this time.

Brian2by2 · 14 March 2003

Brian2by2: Saddam isn't stupid. His plan in the first Gulf War was to force a repeat of Vietnam; lots of casualities and the US public cries out against the war. He setup lots of traps, burning oil pits, dug-in tanks, and bottlenecks expecting a ground attack. He didn't expect the airstrikes to last more than three days. (boy was he wrong! )

I never called Sadaam stupid. He does; however, act without thinking. Does he honestly believe he has a chance against us? Leads me to believe he has something planned...

NeoNSX · 15 March 2003

Brian2by2 wrote: I mean I understand their stupid, but I don't think they're that stupid and low and behold they think they can win!! LOL

Not looking to start a flame war, but your statement suggests saddam is stupid since he is their leader and makes all the decisions.

I don't know of any examples where he has acted without thinking. He is a shrewed planner. Just look at how he has played the UN diplomatic processes to his favour;
now there is no realistic probability that the UN will pass a resolution for war. If the USA goes it alone, that causes far-reaching complications.

It is wrong to say "Does he honestly believe he has a chance against us?" because that type of arrogance is exactly what causes wars to be lost. Yes, the US has bigger & better guns, planes, troops... but that is just military muscle. Ironically, modern wars are not about winning militarily...
I'm sure Saddam does believe there is a way for him to win despite his obvious lack of military hardware. And that is a spooky thought.

Anyway; like i said, this is not a flame...*extends handshake* let this war be over quickly so the troops can come home and drive their NSX's in peace.

And so we can continue concentrating on tubi exhausts and lowering cars.

sabashioyaki · 15 March 2003

Originally posted by Viper Driver:

So, are you comparing our current situation with Iraq with 1940s nazis and communist dictators? Enquiring minds want to know.

Also, can you put your money where your mouth is and show me where U.S. soldiers are being told to kill surrendering Iraqi soldiers? As one of those soldiers, I'd really like to know where I can read this.

Do you understand that it is Saddam who would rather kill his own troops than let them surrender?

Viper Driver · 15 March 2003

Did you read the very next post I made after the one you just quoted?

Viper Driver · 15 March 2003

Originally posted by Paul65K:
Actually the geneva convention was signed on Sept, 4 1901. Jean Henri Dunant, a Swiss National was the primary architect of the proposal and died in 1910.

Not so fast....I was referring to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which are recognized as the benchmark in treatment of captured enemy combatants.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 are the major written source of international humanitarian law.
The Conventions remain the most important international instruments for defending human dignity in war and extending protection to all non-combatants and to military personnel no longer engaged in combat. The conventions cover wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and sailors, prisoners of war, and civilians.

http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/geneva.html

[This message has been edited by Viper Driver (edited 15 March 2003).]

Viper Driver · 15 March 2003

Like I said, I now know you guys were talking about Saddam's reprisals against his own troops, but "here's the beef" for anyone who may think that the USA is in the business of killing surrendering combatants.

ARTICLE 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

huckster · 15 March 2003

imo saddam is an abhorrently twisted person, based on all reports over the past twenty years.

it is a mistake to think that it doesnt take a certain amount of cunning to stay in power over such a long period of time.

i pray that another war with this country benefits us and the iraqi people and that this despot is deposed, or disposed.

Some Soldiers Already Surrendering.....

Similar threads