Saw That. Poor guiys were probaly sent back to their deaths…
Well, call me a softy, but I think this is a very sad story. Like SpaceGhost says, these guys are probably dead by now. And the fact that they surrendered so easily speaks volumes of the resolve of the Iraqi forces: not at all willing to die for country and leader.
The reference to the French is, of course, the epitome of good humour and class.
Call me naiive, but why would they be dead now?
This story just shows how much resistance the allied forces can expect to meet from the average Iraqi soldier.
This article just made my day.
Because Sadam doesn’t really like public humiliation of his forces, I’m afraid.
Yes, it does. But if all is well, it’s just going to be harmless precision bombing without any actual hand to hand combat. Right… ?
I’ve heard that Saddam executed anyone who surrendered in the last war as cowards. I have absolutely no idea if there’s any credible evidence out there to back that up or not.
Samarm - Saddam would most likely kill them for ‘treachery’ if he found out. Or because he didn’t like their haircuts. Or because their moustaches weren’t properly trimmed. Or because their middle names sounded funny. Or because…
My sarcasm detector registered a slight blip, but I think it may be malfunctioning.
Precision bombing means that only military targets will be hit: airbases, weapons dumps, SAM sites, etc. I would suggest that this means very little collateral damage, no? I guess that ground forces would then move in, and take POWs as they meet them.
Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but isn’t the Mirror a tabloid of some sort? Can we get a better source for this story?
Yes, it sounds fairly plausible, remembering the last war, but I’m going to have to hold off believing this until I see a better source for it.
That depends on precisely where your weapons dumps are. If they happen to be situated right behind hospitals, schools or Chinese Embassies then…
…indeed anywhere within a hundred miles of a Chinese Embassy
[sub]God, I HATE not having an edit function[/sub]
samarm, that would seem like an ideal scenario.
However, it would appear that quite a few Iraqi civilians were killed in the first Gulf War. And look what happens if an informed estimate is a tad too high for moral comfort.
Hmm… that’s bad, but if she’d been an official in the Iraqi government then she’d probably have been more than just fired.
Well, perhaps, but that’s hardly the point. My point is, that IF the US (or whatever passes for “Allied Forces” these days) attacks under the premise of “precision bombing”, they’d better have better aim than they had 10 years ago. Everybody wants to get rid of Hussein, but not everyone is willing to do so at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
While I’m all for wishful thinking as an occassional device for calming school children stressing over a geometry exam, I can’t get behind the OP.
Sure, as in the Gulf War, large numbers of Iraq regular army will quickly surrender. Equally large numbers of army, Republican Guard and unfortunate civilians in Bagdhad will never have the chance. And some of the Guard units will fight ot the last man. In any case, Bush’s war will be a bloodbath.
And lest you think, as the OP seems to, that occupation of Iraq will be a cakewalk for US and UK soldiers, don’t forget the high probability of urban civilian resistance. (But hey, my source is obviously biased. Perhaps it’s safe to ignore in favor of the OP’s more rigorous reporting… :rolleyes: )
And that was just the British troops.
So does this mean we can start calling them, “Oil Pumping Surrender Monkeys?”
This makes me sad, too.
I have reservations about the war. This eases them somewhat. It seems to me as if the whole country is being held hostage.
Although, I think the British troops should have accepted their surrender, or treated them as defectors or dissidents.