Jane's reported today

[onthebottom]

on NPR (National Public Radio down here) that during British live fire exercises Iraqi's have been crossing the Kuwait border to surrender! At fist it was just a dozen or so but apparently there are now substantial numbers that cross to surrender every time the British use live ordnance (French blood?). According to Jane's "they look like they could use a good meal".

The irony is that the British are sending them back telling them the war has not started yet. So much for that stiff resistance that the left is warning about.

OTB

 

[gypsy121]

I must have missed something about stiff resistance!

So the western forces are sending surrendering men back to be bombed when the war does start? If this is true then it is not very sporting of those British is it...this should be a war crime. If the Iraqis have the good sense to surrender in the face of far superior forces then why should they be sent back to what ultimately could be death at the hands of those they are trying to surrender too. In addition if my son were over there for the British or the US I am not sure I would like the idea of sending someone back across the line that might in due course be shooting at him.

If this is the allied policy it is abhorrent.

gypsy

 

[train]

I must have missed something about stiff resistance!

So the western forces are sending surrendering men back to be bombed when the war does start?
gypsy

More jumping to conclusions here.

 

[gypsy121]

More jumping to conclusions here.

Train that isn't a conclusion I have jumped to a simple fact of every war in my lifetime. Do you think any sensible force would attack an enemy without bombing them to weaken them first? I am not a military strategist but I am pretty sure when/if the war starts there will be a lot of bombing before the tanks and troops cross into Iraq.

Could you clarify your cryptic remark?

Thank
gypsy

 

[MuffinMuncher]

I think what Train meant was that you cant quit until the game has actually started. LOL!

 

[gypsy121]

MM,

I think if the game is Russian Roulette with all chambers loaded...the sensible quit before the game begins!
;-)

gypsy

 

[taperman]

You have to be at war before you can take prisoners.

 

[gypsy121]

You have to be at war before you can take prisoners.

Sorry I seem to be missing your point? Are you are saying that if Soviet soldiers had crossed over the Berlin wall and threw there arms up they would have been sent back? Afterall we weren't at war with them. In fact I know soldiers from Communist east Europe who crossed over and were actually given asylum.

As I know this to be fact I am not sure of the validity of the statement above. I am not an expert so quite possibly you know of some British regulation that requires these men to be returned to Iraq?

Thanks
gypsy

 

[zog]

...there are now substantial numbers that cross to surrender every time the British use live ordnance (French blood).

Iraq was once a French colony. I don't know if that's significant but it's an interesting co-incidence.

Zog.

 

[shack]

I think the point is that you can't be a prisoner of war (Geneva conventions definition of PoW) unless war has been declared which I don't believe it has. That would be different than someone seeking asylum. It may depend on what they asked for.
It may just be a matter of semantics but sometimes that's all it takes in affairs of this kind.

 

[james t kirk]

Well, in 91 i remember a bunch of iraqis surrendering to news journalists.

There were also some who surrendered to unarmed surveillance aircraft.

And i also remember seeing footage of iraqi soldiers trying to kiss the hands of their american captors (much to the disgust of the american soldiers).

I don't think the Iraqis are known as fighters, but it may be different when you are on their home turf.

 

[train]

Could you clarify your cryptic remark?

Thank
gypsy

Sure no problem . I think you were jumping to the conclusion that their surrender wouldn't be accepted if and when war is declared .

 

[Bboy]

I'd even go so far to say that the Brits and Americans would invite the same Iraqis to surrender when the war starts. Even provide them with information as to how to do it prior to the war starting, if they're not doing it already.

 

[gypsy121]

Sure no problem . I think you were jumping to the conclusion that their surrender wouldn't be accepted if and when war is declared .

Well I don't read that in what I wrote but if you did obviously I wasn't clear.

What I meant was that there will be bombs falling long before the allied forces ever start making their way into Iraq. Therefore many of these would be deserters may not have the chance to surrender to a soldier before a bomb falls on him. Yes these deserters may 'surrender' when the war begins but we can't know that for sure so why not neutralize the threat while we have the chance.

As mentioned above I think there is a matter of semantics here as well. I think these soldiers might be better described as deserters seeking asylum rather than prisoners of war. I just think that it is ridiculous to not illiminate a threat before it does you harm. Isn't that the point of the entire exercise? We are trying to illiminate any threat to the west by Iraq before it can cause harm.

gypsy

 

[train]

Probably complicated by the wishes of Kuwait and what is going on at the UN and the practical aspects of what to do with them ( ie house feed etc.)

 

[gypsy121]

Train I agree that these practical considerations are probably what motivates them. Isn't it ironic that you could probably house and feed them for the price of 1 lazer guided bomb. I forget the actual dollar figure but I remember hearing once the cost of a single cruise missile. It was outrageous.

gypsy

 

[onthebottom]

On NPR

they did state that the issue was you can't take a prisoner of war if there is no war and the British could not make Asylum decisions for the Kuwaiti's. The US is going to great effort via leaflet bombings (paper cut risk for those lefties) explaining how to surrender. Sounds like it's working...

Zog, thanks the French blood explains it.

OTB

 

[sorely]

It was the Brits that concocted Iraq after WWI to protect their land route to India.

 

[onthebottom]

Amazing

how many of the Middle East's problems were caused by the Brits.

OTB

 

[sorely]

Probably most of them.