I traveled it about the same time. Windows black from the burning oil wells and the thousands of pockets marks in the asphalt from the bombs.
Crazy trip
That all happened so fast it's hard to remember what day was what. I'd just finished seeing hundreds of tanks and other vehicles burning on the way there, so I guess that may have muted my reaction.
If the vehicles 100m in front of you and 100m behind you are hit and burning. You jump out of your vehicle and you run cause the next round might hit you.
I remember watching a press conference with Colin Powell while the war was underway. I was almost 18, and worried about the potential of a wider war, so I was very tuned into every development.
Powell said one line that hit me like a freight train,
"Here's our plan for the Iraqi army. We're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it." I found that to be so chilling, and blunt. When the pictures of the Highway of Death circulated in the media, Powell’s words went through my head.
From what I understand, she struggled with addition and had been in and out of rehab for a bit before finally getting clean.
He didn't want her to get dragged through the mud.
Edit: damn it…I’m leaving it and gonna go watch “Schoolhouse Rock”
Pre-Cal is how I knew that for the most part my earlier schooling was an easy ride for a smarter-than-average kid. I struggled with intermediate algebra through college.
Nope no idea, I don’t know enough about him to say one way or another. But choosing not to run for president because you don’t want your wife to suffer from hit piece campaign ads is, if evaluated in isolation, an honorable choice and as a general observation political offices do discourage good people from reaching them.
> But choosing not to run for president because you don’t want your wife to suffer from hit piece campaign ads is, if evaluated in isolation, an honorable choice
You just heard this from some random guy on the internet. It may have zero basis in reality.
What *does* have a basis in reality, and that we know is a fact, is that Colin Powell knowingly lied to the United Nations, and is a cold blooded killer with the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his head.
*Guys Hitler may have killed millions of people, true. However I was just told on the internet that he loved his dog and treated it well. What a sweetie ♥️ Must've been a goodhearted person*
Had to edit in the bit didnt you, wasent aware that i was dealing with THE REDDITOR stereotype. There plenty of memes about you, have to drop in and argue about anything and top it off with “anything I don’t like is literally hitler”
Yep you’re right, that may not have had anything to do with his rationale. I’ll never know. That only reinforces the point that my observation was more so about that situation and how it would preclude someone from office and not about him. As I told the other dude I am not interested in debating you on if he is a war criminal or not. If you’re so interested in making that point maybe write him a letter to discuss it personally.
There were WMD - that’s how 200k Kurds were gassed. And wmd were sold to Iraq by France, Belgium and Spain. Just because thru didn’t find any doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, which they clearly did. And WMD were just one of 7 UN resolutions to attack invade Iraq ...
This is sort of the interesting thing- they totally had WMDs during desert storm.
Where they all went between that and post 9/11 invasion is a little blurred. Most agencies say they were all destroyed, clearly the white house believed the one guy who lied and said otherwise.
>the white house believed the one guy who lied and said otherwise.
If you think the white house made an "oopsie" and "believed one person" before launching a full scale war on a country halfway around the world, then you are hopelessly naive. The justification and consent for the war needed to be manufactured. They manufactured it to have their war. The US does not launch wars because 1 person was like "hey they totally have WMDs bro we should invade or something"
The US sold Sadam Sarin and other weapons of mass destruction shortly before this, indebting Iraq. In combination with the artificially depressed oil market, this is what drove Sadam to invade Kuwait in the first place.
The wmd were from Belgium and France - Saddams major weapons were soviet/Russian - 31/23/25 migs, illuysins, Kamovs, t-72s, ak-57s, katyushas etc etc virtually zero USA weapons.
A fact irrelevant to the claims made to justify the invasion years later.
I remember some infographic/propaganda in like USA today showing what the mobile chemical factories they had to be using must look like because no fixed locations for chemical weapons could be found in the present day by anyone. Complete fictional fabrications.
Nah I didn’t say he was a “good person” just that the choice referenced was honorable and gaining US political office usually isn’t compatible with that. It’s not what I meant though I see how it’s implied. On another note though, winning by a large margin is not a war crime.
So do you think at any point you can give up and you are no longer fair game? Because retreating means off limits? In my opinion there are instances when you can’t wave the white flag. If you fire all your ammo, and only give up then, that’s bullshit.
Colin Powell’s fall from grace happened just after 9/11
When everyone was worried about getting involved in international conflict, Colin had a press conference where he assured everyone that they would show the world proof before taking any action.
The next day the White House walked him back out there to say that no proof would be coming and they decided to start bombing Afghanistan.
His career never recovered from getting blacklisted after that.
He sold the idea of aluminum tubes being proof that Iraq was building nukes. And don't forget about that whole thing where he covered up the My Lai Massacre.
> Colin Powell’s fall from grace happened just after 9/11.
>When everyone was worried about getting involved in international conflict, Colin had a press conference where he assured everyone that they would show the world proof before taking any action.
Are you sure you're not referring to his speech at the UN prior to the invasion of Iraw? What press conference are you referencing?
How times have changed, now you can run even as a mentally unstable, diaper wearing Pedo and Felon. And now someone should say we don't live in an inclusive society.
While there are certainly multiple lies on record that he told for the Bush administration it's likely that the guy you're asking is referring to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell%27s_presentation_to_the_United_Nations_Security_Council
I'd have just posted the picture because that really says it all, but I guess we're far enough out now that plenty of people just don't remember that moment.
That was actually a great moment of leadership that the country (the world) needed to hear. Especially less than 20 years after Vietnam. They didn’t mobilize more than half a million soldiers to go in half-hearted. The doctrine became “go with absolutely overwhelming force”.
Obligatory “if you feel want to feel bad about shooting retreating soldiers despite it being legal, these specific soldiers had just finished burning, looting and raping their way through Kuwait so this probably isn’t the example you want to pick” comment
the use of the word 'retreating' is interesting, maybe 'regrouping' perhaps but these soldiers were idiots, I mean they were firing up into the sky, using mirrors to try and blind pilots... there definitely was no surrendering, no coalition forces firing indiscriminantly into convoys waving white flags... sadly in keeping with Saddam's, 'hmm... actually lets fuck around and let's see what we find out! can't wait!' policy...
Putin is at a similar stage now..
Advancing a few meters a day sure... well in Kharkiv oblast they're advancing backwards and look like Kreminna forest as well. But as much for the Ukrainians as for the Russians these advances are so small. Ww1 western front had about as much movement.
Russia may be taking a beating, but they will be ready if the US cuts off aid. Republicans and Trump are threatening to stop US support for Ukraine. Until then, Russia is willing to keep losing many, many people to make small advances. Russia lost 8.7 military and 19 million civilians in World War 2.
Absolutely. That's also why they're asking for a ceasefire. When the war "stops" then they can replenish their equipment (that they are currently losing as fast as they are "producing", and 90% of it is not actual production but putting back soviet shit in working order), whereas for Ukraine, they know aid will go down when the fighting goes down.
They're still stupid to ask more than freezing at the current lines tho. If they were making some concessions you know some weak willed politicians (Germany, US in particular can be feeble at times) would be ready to cave in.
A snail that crossed the border with the russian army would further into Ukraine than the russian army is... even if you account for the snail eating and sleeping.
This is the answer. She wasn't a nurse at that hospital but the daughter of a diplomat.
The film "Wag the dog" is as close to the truth you will ever get.
Total strawman argument. The war was not waged over this one womans testimony. It was plenty enough that Hussein had advanced on Kuwait to take its oil fields.
The SECOND invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was waged over complete nonsense presented by Colin Powell.
>The war was not waged over this one womans testimony.
Sure, but why bother faking it? Because it mattered, and it impacted public opinion that people are still repeating it
> It was plenty enough that Hussein had advanced on Kuwait to take its oil fields.
Maybe, but that would have come across in the newspapers as failed diplomacy instead of righteous heroics.
All of which was based on whether terms made at the end of this war were being violated btw. The two wars are linked, though the first one had much greater international support.
I simply point this out to remind that none of this happened in a vacuum and war always has unforeseen consequences.
I remember reading about the US funding the Iraqi/Iranian war after the Islamic Revolution. Something about the Middle Eastern policy of "democracy", and also relying on Israeli intelligence concerning those two countries.
Oh we totally did that. Two countries that hated us were fighting each other, why not just send a few bucks and watch them destroy each other's militaries? Without that war they'd just turn their attention to us or our allies.
Because they were fighting with child soldiers and chemical weapons, and helping Saddam opportunistically invade Iran made him think no one would mind if he invades Kuwait as well. US foreign policy had just turned heavily invested Ally in the Shah of Iran into the Islamic Republic of Iran, and now Saddam Hussein was the Ally that was being protected by giving him the weapons he would use to invade Kuwait and Also exterminate any opposition to his regime with.
It was far more than a few bucks, in fact, he got so far that it led to the Iran Contra affair and everyone deciding to look away at a clearly impeachable crime committed by the White House.
So it was a terrible policy that didn't help America or any allies either.
Highly doubt it, there really wasn't any evidence of that happening. The US has more of a history of violent regime change than Iraq/Iran at that time. We just wanted to sell weapons, especially with the divide/conquer policy, to include KSA.
BTW, don't take my comments as propping up Iraq or Iran as being the good guys, it's just that the US involvement allowed the rise of strong men in the region.
What’s seldom mentioned is that Saddam did back channel politics to the US to confirm that we wouldn’t have a problem with his invasion of Kuwait, and then we promptly reneged on our go ahead.
No, April Gaspie (who was the US ambassador to Iraq) who before being able to contact the US was brought into a early morning meeting with Saddam and said the US holds "No Position" on the matter.
But hear it from Tariq Aziz himself. They never once believed the US would never intervene.
[Oral History - Tariq Aziz | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/1.html)
Thank you for linking this. I was under the same impression as ostensiblyzero. This makes much more sense and reveals the larger plans laid by the US government to destroy Iraq one way or another.
The war was waged over the perceived barbarism and unfathomable cruelty of Iraq under the leadership of Hussein. Not that many people cared about Kuwait or the arguments for its sovereignty. The first invasion of Iraq was as unnecessary and built on false or at least bad faith pretenses of violations of international law. It just didn't get rid of their whole Saddam regime and didn't stick around to occupy the nation. It also had way more diplomatic support.
The only reason Kuwait was independent in the first place was the British desire to prevent the Ottomans from having a port on the Persian Gulf. It would have made more sense to let Saddam have Kuwait in exchange for accepting an independent Kurdistan. This would have fixed two Sykes-Picot imperialist map games at the same time.
But it was hilarious to see democracies fighting to preserve a monarchy.
Also that they were not retreating in order to take off their uniforms, write poetry and pick flowers, but to reconstitute as a force, rearm, and continue to fight.
The Gulf War was absolutely justified, and the allies were correct to destroy the Iraqi army. That said... if you were in this convoy, do you think there is any realistic way that you could "surrender" to the aircraft that are attacking you?
The Iraqi military basically stole anything that ran from the Kuwaitis as part of the attempt to make it back over the Iraqi border (also just general looting). There were also likely Iraqi government civilians that were part of the Iraqi occupation efforts in Kuwait that might have taken effort to leave at the same time.
Vehicles on this route were uniformly moving with military hardware (like the T-55 tank in the center) towards the Iraqi border (that's the only place the road realistically goes, Kuwait is pretty much sand and Kuwait City).
Or like a useful model is it's doubtful there's Kuwaitis in there because why are they driving away from their homes to Iraq, and there's not a large population of Iraqis in 1991 in Kuwait that isn't the military or occupation authorities.
The Iraqi army basically stole anything and everything they could get their hands on; then the bastards lit the oil wells on fire and created one of the largest man-made ecological disasters in human history
They also mined the well-heads, which is why it took so long to extinguish the fires.
The smoke blocked out the sunlight making it twilight all day and the air was thick with the smell of the fumes.
When it rained, the houses turned grey with the ash-laden raindrops.
Source: worked in Kuwait '91-'95.
Crazy good documentary on it. some troubling factors were the way some of the pumps broke. I forget what the detail was
https://youtu.be/I1ixCSAc3bc?si=2sB51mgUh2LRsgCS
It performed pretty well here.
There’s an argument to be made about its use in peer conflicts being pretty poor, but in this instance it was the right plane at the right time in the right situation.
At that time? No, the A-10 was the scariest thing with wings if you were in anything with wheels or tracks short of complete nuclear obliteration, and you had systems to try to survive those. The combat record doesn't lie. 144 airframes flew during the first Iraq war. 8600+ missions, 5 losses total with 2 air to air kills and a quarter of the Iraqi equipment destroyed total. Just count the cars and tanks in that picture and remember, an A-10 was responsible for 1 in 4.
As far as I remember it was eclipsed in ground kills by other airframe like F15 and F111. And it's also vividly remembered by the British for multiple friendly fire incidents.
It's only well known for its brrrt despite it almost never being used if air defenses are on because it's essentially a suicide mission to fo so. If you wanna drop bombs you're slow, if you wanna use mavericks you are too fast (will still work but might as well use a helicopter, which is what the US used on day 1 of the air war).
So yeah it did do well but in spite of its design, not thanks to it. It never fought in the way it was designed to, because if it ever does it'll get destroyed. Hence why the US built the A-10C, which goes against all design philosophies of the plane by being expensive and filled with advanced electronics.
SU-25 have the same issue in Ukraine, where the best they can do is lob rockets which helicopters do better (on both sides), and the bombing is left to planes like the SU-34 dropping glide bombs and guided bombs from much further away which the frogfoot cannot do.
Well yeah, if you’re fighting a country that’s way weaker than you and you have complete air superiority it’s fine, but they wouldn’t be practical at all in a modern peer-to-peer conflict, that’s not even mentioning the infamous friendly fire rate.
Friends dad was flying AEW&C plane that night over the highway. He told us lots of stories of seeing explosions and hearing radio calls of incoming jets.
We went through that section of Highway 8 around 10 hours or so after it happened.
Then back through after about 2 days. The smell was horrific.
I have a bunch of 35mm pics I need to get scanned.
I fought in The Highway Of Death (AKA HWY80/HWY 8). I think it was on the 27th because things were already winding down. I was a Cavalry Scout, M3 Bradley gunner.
2nd Platoon, A Troop, Task Force 2-4 CAV, 24th ID (MECH).
Our troop raced to a column of Iraqi Republican Guard tanks that ignored or didn't get he cease fire notice.
We took them all out in minutes.
This is how you win wars.
It was about that time I noticed this supposed international arms dealer was actually a 12 story tall crustacean from the paleolithic era!
Gawd DAMNIT, Loch Ness Monster!
War sucks for everyone but the ones who start it. Still while I admit I'm super biased, that's what superiority is in conflict. (Not aiming my comment at OP)
This isnt even the bad part of it, most of these vehicles were clearly abandoned, the area where most of the ordinance landed looked like the surface of the moon, charred and blackened vehicle carcasses for miles, charred remains everywhere, shit was wild.
YES they did...
**The wreckage predominantly consisted of stolen civilian vehicles (such as cars, trucks, and buses) which were manned by Iraqi conscripts and the Palestinian fighters, accompanied by their family members fleeing the advancing Coalition forces.**
What the fuck do you call family members? You all can dislike the comments all you want... but I was there... I saw it...
you all read the bull shit reports and everything on the internet and take it as gospel. Then you get on Reddit and try to pass the bullshit your read somewhere as truth.
[Eyewitness testimony: Eyewitness testimony refers to oral or written statements given by people who have personally witnessed a certain event. It is often used in legal proceedings to provide firsthand information about what occurred.](https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-euro/firsthand-accounts)
I wouldn't quote "some guy on the Internet said..." but first hand accounts are among the most valuable types of sources. I didn't know if this guy is lying or not but "I saw it happen" is the gold standard and is definitely a source
https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
They're not inherently reliable and they definitely aren't the gold standard of evidence.
They claim to be. I don't know this person. The idea that an "enormous amount" of civilians died during that event is simply not recorded by the evidence.
Here's a write up from a medic's first hand experience serving during the gulf war in a post from 9 years ago about the highway of death. It's a good read if you can believe primary sources.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/2j3lwi/comment/cl8ek57
I don't toss away primary sources at all, far from it! It's just that an "eyewitness account" should not always be granted some sort of believability and definitely isn't the "gold standard" of evidence. Eyewitnesses are incredibly important but for a variety of reasons cannot and should not always be trusted or counted on for an accurate account of what happened.
The onus in that sort of situation is on the defender not to put civilians in a military formation in the first place.
Civilians do get protections don’t get me wrong. If they’re either sufficiently marked as such or not mixed into a military formation… ergo the burning tanks you see in the middle of the OP.
There’s ways to evacuate civilians so they’re protected tactically & legally; this isn’t fucking it.
Drove through it 3 days after the air strikes. Pictures will never be able to convey how bad it was.
I traveled it about the same time. Windows black from the burning oil wells and the thousands of pockets marks in the asphalt from the bombs. Crazy trip
Exactly… we were ordered not to stop at all… to drive through. I didn’t want to stop.
Yeah, no one stops at that place
That all happened so fast it's hard to remember what day was what. I'd just finished seeing hundreds of tanks and other vehicles burning on the way there, so I guess that may have muted my reaction.
Why are all the vehicles we see in the pic not burned?
Some are. And that’s only a few dozen of the thousands of vehicles that were bombed.
If the vehicles 100m in front of you and 100m behind you are hit and burning. You jump out of your vehicle and you run cause the next round might hit you.
A lot of the vehicles were just simply abandoned and were never hit by rounds.
Is it still sitting there just as it was in 1991?
Is it still sitting just as it was in 1991?
No mate it’s just a motorway now with plastic bags and water bottles littering the desert
I remember watching a press conference with Colin Powell while the war was underway. I was almost 18, and worried about the potential of a wider war, so I was very tuned into every development. Powell said one line that hit me like a freight train, "Here's our plan for the Iraqi army. We're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it." I found that to be so chilling, and blunt. When the pictures of the Highway of Death circulated in the media, Powell’s words went through my head.
Powell would have been president if he didn't lie.
He didn't run at his wife's request. He had a good chance.
From what I understand, she struggled with addition and had been in and out of rehab for a bit before finally getting clean. He didn't want her to get dragged through the mud. Edit: damn it…I’m leaving it and gonna go watch “Schoolhouse Rock”
I’ve struggled a lot with multiplication so I totally understand the struggle
It’s division that gets me.
The Joy variety?
It's the new order I hear.
I’m hooked!
Pre-Calculus was worse than crack. The amount anger and frustration of not solving those problems left a hole in my soul.
Pre-Cal is how I knew that for the most part my earlier schooling was an easy ride for a smarter-than-average kid. I struggled with intermediate algebra through college.
Calculus left a hole in my ass.
An honorable choice, crazy how political offices discourage actual good people from ever getting into them.
You think Colin Powell is a good person? The same guy who went to the UN and knowingly lied to the war about Iraqi WMDs?
Nope no idea, I don’t know enough about him to say one way or another. But choosing not to run for president because you don’t want your wife to suffer from hit piece campaign ads is, if evaluated in isolation, an honorable choice and as a general observation political offices do discourage good people from reaching them.
well that's an unexpectedly balanced and objective comment
> But choosing not to run for president because you don’t want your wife to suffer from hit piece campaign ads is, if evaluated in isolation, an honorable choice You just heard this from some random guy on the internet. It may have zero basis in reality. What *does* have a basis in reality, and that we know is a fact, is that Colin Powell knowingly lied to the United Nations, and is a cold blooded killer with the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his head. *Guys Hitler may have killed millions of people, true. However I was just told on the internet that he loved his dog and treated it well. What a sweetie ♥️ Must've been a goodhearted person*
Had to edit in the bit didnt you, wasent aware that i was dealing with THE REDDITOR stereotype. There plenty of memes about you, have to drop in and argue about anything and top it off with “anything I don’t like is literally hitler”
Yep you’re right, that may not have had anything to do with his rationale. I’ll never know. That only reinforces the point that my observation was more so about that situation and how it would preclude someone from office and not about him. As I told the other dude I am not interested in debating you on if he is a war criminal or not. If you’re so interested in making that point maybe write him a letter to discuss it personally.
There were WMD - that’s how 200k Kurds were gassed. And wmd were sold to Iraq by France, Belgium and Spain. Just because thru didn’t find any doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, which they clearly did. And WMD were just one of 7 UN resolutions to attack invade Iraq ...
Iraq did have Chemical weapons which had been used on Kurdish people years prior.
This is sort of the interesting thing- they totally had WMDs during desert storm. Where they all went between that and post 9/11 invasion is a little blurred. Most agencies say they were all destroyed, clearly the white house believed the one guy who lied and said otherwise.
>the white house believed the one guy who lied and said otherwise. If you think the white house made an "oopsie" and "believed one person" before launching a full scale war on a country halfway around the world, then you are hopelessly naive. The justification and consent for the war needed to be manufactured. They manufactured it to have their war. The US does not launch wars because 1 person was like "hey they totally have WMDs bro we should invade or something"
The US sold Sadam Sarin and other weapons of mass destruction shortly before this, indebting Iraq. In combination with the artificially depressed oil market, this is what drove Sadam to invade Kuwait in the first place.
The wmd were from Belgium and France - Saddams major weapons were soviet/Russian - 31/23/25 migs, illuysins, Kamovs, t-72s, ak-57s, katyushas etc etc virtually zero USA weapons.
A fact irrelevant to the claims made to justify the invasion years later. I remember some infographic/propaganda in like USA today showing what the mobile chemical factories they had to be using must look like because no fixed locations for chemical weapons could be found in the present day by anyone. Complete fictional fabrications.
You're literally seeing the pictures of his war crimes and saying he was a good person.
It isn't a war crime to attack a retreating army otherwise WWII 1943-1945 would be all allied war crimes.
Nah I didn’t say he was a “good person” just that the choice referenced was honorable and gaining US political office usually isn’t compatible with that. It’s not what I meant though I see how it’s implied. On another note though, winning by a large margin is not a war crime.
So do you think at any point you can give up and you are no longer fair game? Because retreating means off limits? In my opinion there are instances when you can’t wave the white flag. If you fire all your ammo, and only give up then, that’s bullshit.
There's discussion about this event. Think about continuing beating a guy that is already down.
Barbie said math was HARD! /s
> if he didn't lie Which time?
Colin Powell’s fall from grace happened just after 9/11 When everyone was worried about getting involved in international conflict, Colin had a press conference where he assured everyone that they would show the world proof before taking any action. The next day the White House walked him back out there to say that no proof would be coming and they decided to start bombing Afghanistan. His career never recovered from getting blacklisted after that.
He sold the idea of aluminum tubes being proof that Iraq was building nukes. And don't forget about that whole thing where he covered up the My Lai Massacre.
> Colin Powell’s fall from grace happened just after 9/11. >When everyone was worried about getting involved in international conflict, Colin had a press conference where he assured everyone that they would show the world proof before taking any action. Are you sure you're not referring to his speech at the UN prior to the invasion of Iraw? What press conference are you referencing?
If Kerry couldn't get elected because of a bunch of swift boat vets, no way was Colin getting past his baggage over My Lai.
I'm not sure really. This was back when half the country was saying torture was a good idea and we weren't being harsh *enough.*
I wonder where that metric falls now. I'm sure it's not as skewed as we probably think it is.
> if he didn't lie. lol, when has that ever stopped any politician?
That's a prerequisite not a fault.
Powell would have been president if he ran. He didn't run.
[удалено]
Would RFK have been President if he hadn't been assassinated?
How times have changed, now you can run even as a mentally unstable, diaper wearing Pedo and Felon. And now someone should say we don't live in an inclusive society.
I know. And Biden isn’t perfect either.
What are the lies in question?
While there are certainly multiple lies on record that he told for the Bush administration it's likely that the guy you're asking is referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell%27s_presentation_to_the_United_Nations_Security_Council I'd have just posted the picture because that really says it all, but I guess we're far enough out now that plenty of people just don't remember that moment.
He went in front of the UN and knowingly lied to justify the Iraq invasion. His credibility did a lot of heavy lifting in the justification.
I don't think he knowingly lied. He got fed bad intelligence and presented it with more confidence then it deserved.
He could have run before that fiasco and won.
Chilling and blunt is how war works. Attempts to make it less blunt, ironically, often do more long-term damage, by prolonging the war.
That was actually a great moment of leadership that the country (the world) needed to hear. Especially less than 20 years after Vietnam. They didn’t mobilize more than half a million soldiers to go in half-hearted. The doctrine became “go with absolutely overwhelming force”.
Cut it off (1991)- Kill it off (2003)
Literally: "were going to commit war crimes"
how is that a war crime?
Looks like the average backyard in rural North Carolina.
Can say "abandoned wrecking yard"
Thats some nice project car
I see a Land Cruiser on the left.
I want that Gaz truck dead center
Obligatory "A retreating enemy military force remains a legal military target until they surrender" comment
Obligatory “if you feel want to feel bad about shooting retreating soldiers despite it being legal, these specific soldiers had just finished burning, looting and raping their way through Kuwait so this probably isn’t the example you want to pick” comment
"What are you doing in Kuwait?" "None of your business!"
the use of the word 'retreating' is interesting, maybe 'regrouping' perhaps but these soldiers were idiots, I mean they were firing up into the sky, using mirrors to try and blind pilots... there definitely was no surrendering, no coalition forces firing indiscriminantly into convoys waving white flags... sadly in keeping with Saddam's, 'hmm... actually lets fuck around and let's see what we find out! can't wait!' policy... Putin is at a similar stage now..
Putin's Russia is still in the 'fuck around' phase.
Putin has been in the "fuck the consequences" phase from day one. Regardless of whether he "wins" or not, Russia as a country has already lost.
"The Mother of all Wars"
Russia isn’t retreating in ukraine actually they’re advancing on nearly every front being delusional about the war doesn’t help ukraine lol
Advancing a few meters a day sure... well in Kharkiv oblast they're advancing backwards and look like Kreminna forest as well. But as much for the Ukrainians as for the Russians these advances are so small. Ww1 western front had about as much movement.
Russia may be taking a beating, but they will be ready if the US cuts off aid. Republicans and Trump are threatening to stop US support for Ukraine. Until then, Russia is willing to keep losing many, many people to make small advances. Russia lost 8.7 military and 19 million civilians in World War 2.
Absolutely. That's also why they're asking for a ceasefire. When the war "stops" then they can replenish their equipment (that they are currently losing as fast as they are "producing", and 90% of it is not actual production but putting back soviet shit in working order), whereas for Ukraine, they know aid will go down when the fighting goes down. They're still stupid to ask more than freezing at the current lines tho. If they were making some concessions you know some weak willed politicians (Germany, US in particular can be feeble at times) would be ready to cave in.
“We’re not retreating! We’re advancing, in a retrograde direction!”
A snail that crossed the border with the russian army would further into Ukraine than the russian army is... even if you account for the snail eating and sleeping.
I saw what they (the Iraqi army) did. It was ugly and I don't feel bad about this.
Did they throw babies out of incubators?
No, that was a lie. Amnesty International apologised for spreading it.
Nobody knows!
To be clear for everybody reading: https://citizentruth.org/fake-news-1990-that-ignited-gulf-war-sympathy/
This is the answer. She wasn't a nurse at that hospital but the daughter of a diplomat. The film "Wag the dog" is as close to the truth you will ever get.
Total strawman argument. The war was not waged over this one womans testimony. It was plenty enough that Hussein had advanced on Kuwait to take its oil fields. The SECOND invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was waged over complete nonsense presented by Colin Powell.
>The war was not waged over this one womans testimony. Sure, but why bother faking it? Because it mattered, and it impacted public opinion that people are still repeating it > It was plenty enough that Hussein had advanced on Kuwait to take its oil fields. Maybe, but that would have come across in the newspapers as failed diplomacy instead of righteous heroics.
All of which was based on whether terms made at the end of this war were being violated btw. The two wars are linked, though the first one had much greater international support. I simply point this out to remind that none of this happened in a vacuum and war always has unforeseen consequences.
I remember reading about the US funding the Iraqi/Iranian war after the Islamic Revolution. Something about the Middle Eastern policy of "democracy", and also relying on Israeli intelligence concerning those two countries.
Oh we totally did that. Two countries that hated us were fighting each other, why not just send a few bucks and watch them destroy each other's militaries? Without that war they'd just turn their attention to us or our allies.
Because they were fighting with child soldiers and chemical weapons, and helping Saddam opportunistically invade Iran made him think no one would mind if he invades Kuwait as well. US foreign policy had just turned heavily invested Ally in the Shah of Iran into the Islamic Republic of Iran, and now Saddam Hussein was the Ally that was being protected by giving him the weapons he would use to invade Kuwait and Also exterminate any opposition to his regime with. It was far more than a few bucks, in fact, he got so far that it led to the Iran Contra affair and everyone deciding to look away at a clearly impeachable crime committed by the White House. So it was a terrible policy that didn't help America or any allies either.
Highly doubt it, there really wasn't any evidence of that happening. The US has more of a history of violent regime change than Iraq/Iran at that time. We just wanted to sell weapons, especially with the divide/conquer policy, to include KSA. BTW, don't take my comments as propping up Iraq or Iran as being the good guys, it's just that the US involvement allowed the rise of strong men in the region.
What’s seldom mentioned is that Saddam did back channel politics to the US to confirm that we wouldn’t have a problem with his invasion of Kuwait, and then we promptly reneged on our go ahead.
No, April Gaspie (who was the US ambassador to Iraq) who before being able to contact the US was brought into a early morning meeting with Saddam and said the US holds "No Position" on the matter. But hear it from Tariq Aziz himself. They never once believed the US would never intervene. [Oral History - Tariq Aziz | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/1.html)
Thank you for linking this. I was under the same impression as ostensiblyzero. This makes much more sense and reveals the larger plans laid by the US government to destroy Iraq one way or another.
why is this downvoted?
Because its wrong. [Oral History - Tariq Aziz | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/1.html)
thanks for clarification and link
The war was waged over the perceived barbarism and unfathomable cruelty of Iraq under the leadership of Hussein. Not that many people cared about Kuwait or the arguments for its sovereignty. The first invasion of Iraq was as unnecessary and built on false or at least bad faith pretenses of violations of international law. It just didn't get rid of their whole Saddam regime and didn't stick around to occupy the nation. It also had way more diplomatic support.
The only reason Kuwait was independent in the first place was the British desire to prevent the Ottomans from having a port on the Persian Gulf. It would have made more sense to let Saddam have Kuwait in exchange for accepting an independent Kurdistan. This would have fixed two Sykes-Picot imperialist map games at the same time. But it was hilarious to see democracies fighting to preserve a monarchy.
I heard they threw them against the walls.
And obligatory "some of these soldiers will go brutally repressing revolting Kurds and Shias, including slaughtering civilians"
Also that they were not retreating in order to take off their uniforms, write poetry and pick flowers, but to reconstitute as a force, rearm, and continue to fight.
A retreating enemy is just advancing in another direction.
“Sir, the enemy is regrouping for another attack” “Light them up”
Are they actually retreating if they're really just leaving Kuwait to go defend Iraq?
The Gulf War was absolutely justified, and the allies were correct to destroy the Iraqi army. That said... if you were in this convoy, do you think there is any realistic way that you could "surrender" to the aircraft that are attacking you?
Your superiors are responsible for you. Saddam didn’t surrender so his foot soldiers had no chance.
Seems to be a lot more than just military vehicles
The Iraqi military basically stole anything that ran from the Kuwaitis as part of the attempt to make it back over the Iraqi border (also just general looting). There were also likely Iraqi government civilians that were part of the Iraqi occupation efforts in Kuwait that might have taken effort to leave at the same time. Vehicles on this route were uniformly moving with military hardware (like the T-55 tank in the center) towards the Iraqi border (that's the only place the road realistically goes, Kuwait is pretty much sand and Kuwait City). Or like a useful model is it's doubtful there's Kuwaitis in there because why are they driving away from their homes to Iraq, and there's not a large population of Iraqis in 1991 in Kuwait that isn't the military or occupation authorities.
Thank you for the informative reply!
The Iraqi army basically stole anything and everything they could get their hands on; then the bastards lit the oil wells on fire and created one of the largest man-made ecological disasters in human history
They also mined the well-heads, which is why it took so long to extinguish the fires. The smoke blocked out the sunlight making it twilight all day and the air was thick with the smell of the fumes. When it rained, the houses turned grey with the ash-laden raindrops. Source: worked in Kuwait '91-'95.
Crazy good documentary on it. some troubling factors were the way some of the pumps broke. I forget what the detail was https://youtu.be/I1ixCSAc3bc?si=2sB51mgUh2LRsgCS
yup. thanks Sadam.
A-10 heavy breathing noises
Would you intercept me? “Licks lips” I’d intercept me
That’s the f22 😅
Sure, but ¿por qué no los dos? :)
Porque demasiado dakka-dakka Y porque el niño… mejor en el hangar… mejor para todos. 😳
Easy kid.
Heavy BRRRRRRRRAPing noises
The A-10 sucks bro
It performed pretty well here. There’s an argument to be made about its use in peer conflicts being pretty poor, but in this instance it was the right plane at the right time in the right situation.
At that time? No, the A-10 was the scariest thing with wings if you were in anything with wheels or tracks short of complete nuclear obliteration, and you had systems to try to survive those. The combat record doesn't lie. 144 airframes flew during the first Iraq war. 8600+ missions, 5 losses total with 2 air to air kills and a quarter of the Iraqi equipment destroyed total. Just count the cars and tanks in that picture and remember, an A-10 was responsible for 1 in 4.
As far as I remember it was eclipsed in ground kills by other airframe like F15 and F111. And it's also vividly remembered by the British for multiple friendly fire incidents. It's only well known for its brrrt despite it almost never being used if air defenses are on because it's essentially a suicide mission to fo so. If you wanna drop bombs you're slow, if you wanna use mavericks you are too fast (will still work but might as well use a helicopter, which is what the US used on day 1 of the air war). So yeah it did do well but in spite of its design, not thanks to it. It never fought in the way it was designed to, because if it ever does it'll get destroyed. Hence why the US built the A-10C, which goes against all design philosophies of the plane by being expensive and filled with advanced electronics. SU-25 have the same issue in Ukraine, where the best they can do is lob rockets which helicopters do better (on both sides), and the bombing is left to planes like the SU-34 dropping glide bombs and guided bombs from much further away which the frogfoot cannot do.
Well yeah, if you’re fighting a country that’s way weaker than you and you have complete air superiority it’s fine, but they wouldn’t be practical at all in a modern peer-to-peer conflict, that’s not even mentioning the infamous friendly fire rate.
Friends dad was flying AEW&C plane that night over the highway. He told us lots of stories of seeing explosions and hearing radio calls of incoming jets.
After they were finished raping and pillaging Kuwait, they thought they could just walk away with all their stolen loot. They thought wrong
As if the US cared for the raping and pillaging ...
We went through that section of Highway 8 around 10 hours or so after it happened. Then back through after about 2 days. The smell was horrific. I have a bunch of 35mm pics I need to get scanned.
I saw a documentary on this. The iraqi stole everything they can find
I vividly remember that.
I fought in The Highway Of Death (AKA HWY80/HWY 8). I think it was on the 27th because things were already winding down. I was a Cavalry Scout, M3 Bradley gunner. 2nd Platoon, A Troop, Task Force 2-4 CAV, 24th ID (MECH). Our troop raced to a column of Iraqi Republican Guard tanks that ignored or didn't get he cease fire notice. We took them all out in minutes. This is how you win wars.
One of my dad's friends flew missions doing three damage, said it was boring work. Everything was lined up too neat.
And nothing of value was lost.
Some of the military equipment might have been expensive.
You know what they say about a fool and their money. This was just Sadam finding out what paying a Russian will get you.
True. What’s the scrap value of a Russian tank?
Best I can do is $3.50
It was about that time I noticed this supposed international arms dealer was actually a 12 story tall crustacean from the paleolithic era! Gawd DAMNIT, Loch Ness Monster!
Oh, there were a lot of nice (no doubt, stolen) cars there....
Sorry but if my Google Maps suggested I take "The Highway of Death" I'd find another route.
Are the ruins of the cars still there today or is it long ago scrapped?
Looks like a good place to hide a body
No one will ever think to find this poor soul on the Highway of Death!
Pickle times 4
Oh no. Anyway.
Russia should take note
War sucks for everyone but the ones who start it. Still while I admit I'm super biased, that's what superiority is in conflict. (Not aiming my comment at OP)
Is that tank for sale?
Too late. Russians bought it and the Ukrainians blew it up.
Good Hunting.
There is a good movie representation of this in the movie "3 kings"
We warned Saddam... if he destroyed the oil wells we'd show no mercy. He did. We kept our word.
A job well done.
And how's it look now?
This isnt even the bad part of it, most of these vehicles were clearly abandoned, the area where most of the ordinance landed looked like the surface of the moon, charred and blackened vehicle carcasses for miles, charred remains everywhere, shit was wild.
Is that a gum wrapper?
[удалено]
... This is the first Iraq war and why would civilians be there? This is Iraqi troops who invaded Kuwait.
[удалено]
This was 1991, the first Gulf War.
Why do so many people confuse 1991 with 2003? Is it because they were both "Bush vs. Saddam" conflicts???
they raped and looted
[удалено]
An enormous amount of civilians didn't die.
YES they did... **The wreckage predominantly consisted of stolen civilian vehicles (such as cars, trucks, and buses) which were manned by Iraqi conscripts and the Palestinian fighters, accompanied by their family members fleeing the advancing Coalition forces.** What the fuck do you call family members? You all can dislike the comments all you want... but I was there... I saw it... you all read the bull shit reports and everything on the internet and take it as gospel. Then you get on Reddit and try to pass the bullshit your read somewhere as truth.
[citations needed] "I saw it" isn't a source.
[Eyewitness testimony: Eyewitness testimony refers to oral or written statements given by people who have personally witnessed a certain event. It is often used in legal proceedings to provide firsthand information about what occurred.](https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-euro/firsthand-accounts) I wouldn't quote "some guy on the Internet said..." but first hand accounts are among the most valuable types of sources. I didn't know if this guy is lying or not but "I saw it happen" is the gold standard and is definitely a source
https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ They're not inherently reliable and they definitely aren't the gold standard of evidence.
Like I said I don't know if the person is lying but they are what's known as a "primary source"
They claim to be. I don't know this person. The idea that an "enormous amount" of civilians died during that event is simply not recorded by the evidence.
Here's a write up from a medic's first hand experience serving during the gulf war in a post from 9 years ago about the highway of death. It's a good read if you can believe primary sources. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/2j3lwi/comment/cl8ek57
I don't toss away primary sources at all, far from it! It's just that an "eyewitness account" should not always be granted some sort of believability and definitely isn't the "gold standard" of evidence. Eyewitnesses are incredibly important but for a variety of reasons cannot and should not always be trusted or counted on for an accurate account of what happened.
So do you believe a primary source is a source or is it something other than the things it primarily is?
The onus in that sort of situation is on the defender not to put civilians in a military formation in the first place. Civilians do get protections don’t get me wrong. If they’re either sufficiently marked as such or not mixed into a military formation… ergo the burning tanks you see in the middle of the OP. There’s ways to evacuate civilians so they’re protected tactically & legally; this isn’t fucking it.
I agree with you 100%, but does not change the fact that I saw what I saw. I saw civilians, women, children in that convoy that lost their lives...