Not sure why it was controversial at all. They were retreating, not surrendering. Iraq was still at war with the US. If you don't want your military convoys bombed don't invade your neighbor.
@@Poo_Brain_HorseRussia is annexing Ukraine as we speak, but I bet you’re in the “appeasement” camp and the only reason would be is the fact that they could turn the US into glass. Morals go out the window when you meet your match huh?
The Iraqis were retreating and still posed a threat on the battlefield and to war goals, which included removing Saddam's ability to counterattack or pose a wider military threat. The Gulf War involved bombing civilian bomb shelters and was conducted for some oil- baron dictators, so there's plenty to criticize there. I'm just not sure why people fixate on this like it's somehow beyond the pale.
I get it, but it's mainly about balancing a fine line if there's a risk of heightened escalation, like with Russia. With Iraq, there wasn't really a risk of that, though, espect for the public perspective of U.S actions. Either way, it was easily justified.
“Proportional warfare” sounds like a term made up by people who had lived such a comfortable life that they’ve never heard a gunshot in their life, who can sits and belittle the men and women in uniform giving themselves to protect these people’s comfortable life.
Kermit and wray only have the luxury of that thinking because they never served during war and have not seen what happens when you force your own troops to abide by one-sided idiotic and dangerous rules of engagement
Former infantry here.... you can tell the people criticizing what the Coalition did never served a minute in a uniform. Retreating does NOT mean surrendering, retreating is what you do to regroup and gain a better battlefield advantage.
Yup, you’re right. That’s the problem with civilians having anything to do with war. First, they have no idea what they are talking about. Secondly, they exploit it for their own good in many cases. Let the men who wage war make the decisions. It will be a much shorter and more effective war.
@@dasse8717 Maybe it is because we were lied to and back when there was the draft it left little choice. Wars we have fought in is because we were ordered to do so. Get rid of the soldiers and let the kings and Presidents fight it out face to face for it is they who cause the loss of life and destruction having their armies do the dirty work they are afraid to do.
Some think it's not ok to shoot a fleeing enemy who is running away to live and fight another day. Those are the same fools who think it's ok to have endless wars.
Well, no. You just see it that way because you’re simple. 😂Turns out there’s a lot of nuance to what exists in the in-between space there. What you’re positing is a total misnomer. War can absolutely be fought ethically when you’re the greater power. We don’t fight fair, it’s not a matter of simply decimating our foe, it’s a matter of punishing them, and killing innocents as consequence. We’re a nation of power and cowardice, and it’s a hell of a combo. Nothing is more dangerous than a coward with the power to act on their cowardice. That’s our legacy.
@@JacobR-p4y And you're even simpler thanks to your ignorance. A lot of words trying to sound smart but everyone sees through it. You would fall for someone saying i give up only for them to stab you in the back.
If people were honest with themselves, what's shocking isn't the targets, it's the scale. If there were only a couple hundred, no one would bat an eye, but the Iraqi army was the 4th largest in the world, so thousands were involved. Fun fact, every Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC) test has a question to trip people up: "Do you stop shooting back when the enemy stops shooting?" You kind of feel like you should answer "yes," but the correct answer is "no." The reason? They're probably just reloading, or they're retreating to a more advantageous position. The time to stop is when they're surrendering or your leadership orders you.
In the infantry’s battle drill on react to contact, the maneuver element clears the objective…shooting the opposition and bodies all the way until we pass them. So we know they’re dead. Turning back around to shoot the body would be a war crime.
Another possibility, as elucidated by Harold Coyle in Team Yankee, is that the now-dismounted troops are falling back to a rally point where they can receive new vehicles to fight with. If they aren't surrendering they're still a valid target.
There's this frustrating notion in conflicts that soldiers become innocent civilians the moment they don't have the upper hand. It's especially at play a lot in the Middle East for some reason. These guys would've happily done the same to coalition forces if they were given the opportunity and ability to do so. In fact the Iraqis would've done worse.
you entirely misunderstand what is wrong. it isnt that the other side wouldnt, its that that side did the terrible thing. we dont hold england accountable for the holocaust cause they werent the perpetrators. we condemn terrible actions because they are terrible, not because of who did it. thats before even getting into the fact america, bush specifically, was offering political credence to saddams government back in 1990. america elevated extremists until the logical conclusion of supporting terror cells occurred, and then doubled down and supporting even more, in order to continue the military industrial complex
That frustrates me as well. Middle Eastern media channels know exactly how to manipulate public opinion in the West, especially Al-Jazeera. They know that young liberals are weak to images of women and children in the rubble, they know that the large Muslim minority living in West can pressure governments to react in ways beneficial to the Arabs. They know that the West can’t crack down their minority or people who disagree due to the rights to free speech given to them. What ends up happening is that Western governments can’t crack down on domestic terrorism effectively while Arab countries can just execute people for having a different opinion or being Jewish or being gays.
As usual it's young 20-something college kids who know nothing about war, history, the legalities of war, etc. They just have to mouth-breathe their way into arguing about something they've never studied/understood/experienced. Basically...the internet.
@@zainalnaima158and…? Most militaries force their people to fight. Few people volunteer to go to war, most are pulled in via drafts or levies. Being “forced to fight” doesn’t constitute oppression. There was other forms of oppression but forced military service is not that.
@@zainalnaima158so again, a legitimate military target. It’s doesn’t matter if you had a bad nights sleep, or love fighting for the Iraqi army. You picked up arms and invaded a sovereign nation. No take backs.
Notice that all the people complaining about the brutality were the losing army and journalists who are not in the military and have no real understanding about the military, tactics, etc. Most people who quote the "Rules of War" are again the losing army/country and others who have never been or wanted to be in the military.
I like how this also implies that you only support it because your "side" won, these comments are hysterical because you literally are the thing you're complaining about.
I was also there when engines were still running. Many of the cars were stuffed with loot (one ambulance I came across was full of weapons), including one that was full of toothbrushes and there were fewer bodies than one would imagine.
It’s not controversial or out of the norm in war. The Iraqi army didn’t surrender, so the coalition kept fighting. I’m sick of people calling defensive wars ‘controversial’. War is and has always been inherently brutal. Deterrence is the best policy so we can avoid wars in the first place, but if that fails we still have to deal with reality.
Nope. It was when a world power annihilated innocent civilians in a developing country. Wild, right? 😂 We weren’t the good guys, lil’ bro, which is genuinely remarkable considering what we were up against. Turns out life ain’t black and white and you don’t get to lean on your patriotism as a method of escaping consequence. Sorry, life ain’t as simple as, “I live in the good guy country and they live in the bad guy one.” Your privilege was paid for with blood. Accept it. Acknowledge it.
Exactly. This modern movement of 'feels for the aggressor, just because he bit off more than he could chew' is more dangerous than the conflicts themselves. Because it only encourages more aggression, because the ramifications aren't there to dissuade them anymore.
No one is required to respond "proportionally" by an outside actor. If a nation wishes to respond within their own definition of 'proportionally' they are welcome to hold themselves accountable to that measure. Retreating enemy forces are 100% legitimate targets. Until they surrender as uniformed forces, they're fair game. Never once in the history of warfare has a nation thought 'Oh, well they're running away, guess we're done here...'. This was just a modern version of riding down your fleeing opponent with cavalry. You can argue all day what you think someone else (or a foreign nation) "should" do...but that's all you're doing. Arguing. No one is beholden to your opinion of how they should act.
"Proportionality" is about avoiding escalation into a wider conflict. Saddam was already at the limits of his capabilities, so proportionality shouldn't even apply to these event.
"Never once in the history of warfare has a nation thought 'Oh, well they're running away, guess we're done here...'." If you look at human history, you would be surprised at how many stupid generals there were. The nations that no longer exist are some of the biggest offenders.
Yes. Ultimately, the purpose of a retreat is to avoid capture and keep the military force sufficiently intact *to be able to continue fighting in the future*. The intent of a retreat is not peace, but only to allow the retreating force to shift the battle to a time and place more advantageous to them. This is why retreating armies are considered legitimate targets.
The controversy was Europe seeing this conflict was over, then immediately looking for a lever against the US once again. That entire 1991 war was an "Oh crap" moment for lots of counties, and not simply Iraq and the Soviet Union.
They had forgotten just how big the hammer is, and that was just a fraction, they may not act like it, but they KNOW. An example of this is Putin changing nuclear doctrine right before Trump takes office, usual bluster, he KNOWS how big the hammer is.
@@RK-cj4oc European leaders in the late 80s and early 90s have openly talked about needing "a lever against the US." What they want is something to make the US less belligerent.
If Colon Powell wouldn't have had his Tampon in a bunch in 1991, we could have turned left at the Highway of Death and gone into Iraq to get Saddam. We could not believe it when we were told to unload, clear, and lock, the war is over. I was so ticked-off. We just captured or killed the vast majority of Saddam's army. Iraq was wide-open. Saddam could have been captured or killed in 1991. But no, Powell worried about America's image during the slaughter on the Highway of Death and got his Tampon in a twist and called cease fire. It still makes me mad that we invaded Iraq a decade later and so many Americans unnecessarily lost their lives trying to capture Saddam. All we had to do was turn left, and Operation Iraqi Freedom would likely never have happened. As far as I'm concerned, the blood of everyone who died during Iraqi Freedom is on Powell's hands.
I was only six when the war happened so I had no idea what was going on, but as I got older my understanding was that it was a complete 180 turn. First people were afraid it would be a long drawn out conflict like Vietnam, but once it became clear the Iraqi army was no match for the coalition, suddenly it's viewed as bullying a weaker nation.
Iraq 1991 is also controversial. When you look at some of the messages going on between Iraq and the US it makes it appear that the US actually "baited" Iraq into attacking Kuwait. From a strategic standpoint it would make sense since it then allows you to act like you're just responding to an aggressive country when in fact you're goal all along is to decimate their military which is a threat to your regional allies.
@@pelleif Although the US had plenty or opportunities, they never explicitly warned Iraq not to invade Kuwait. Instead, they seemed to give Iraq very vague messages regarding Kuwait and how disputes should be resolved. There was even a question by the press to the chair of the house international relations committee about whether or not the US had a pact with Kuwait to defend them if Iraq attacked and he said they didn't. Either the US was completely incompetent in terms of communicating to Iraq that they should not consider invading, or they were purposely vague so they could take out Iraq if they did invade. We're never going to know the truth.
Desert Storm was a textbook operation conducted in ideal circumstances. The sad truth is that strength deters aggression. If you are such a dove that you disarm yourself, that alone is enough to convince potential enemies to attack you. Peace would be fantastic, but it can't be maintained with just words alone
@@cisarovnajosefina4525 The second time was a huge self-own that strengthened Iran and supercharged native anti-establishment sentiment in the US while also turning western leadership indecisive in the face of various future crises lest they find themselves in another Iraq.
@@cisarovnajosefina4525 But as long as we are dealing with a culture that makes "Martyrdom and Jihad" all holy, and are still stuck in 7th Century Literalist beliefs and values, that Islamist Supremacism, coupled with Islamonazism, as it was with Saddam, We will have to deal with it. When the EU following their Left/Socialist/Marxist imperatives, so whether the Globalist-Absolutist stance is Secular or Religion, we will have to deal with it. It is easier to feel/believe/submit rather than think. So the Western Enlightenment/Humanist Revolution that created the US Constitution and our Republic will always have a rather nasty enemy to deal with.
A retreat isn't a surrender. If the Iraqis wanted to be treated as anything other than combatants, then they would have surrendered. This massacre lines up with historical statistics regarding battlefield routs and retreats. Most of the casualties in the battles of antiquity occurred during a rout.
Facts. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts talks about the major historical military campaigns of past empires and gives, in horrifying detail, the reality of how retreating armies just get slaughtered by the superior army while they attempt to retreat.
"A retreat, is simply advancing in another direction". Retreating, falling back, falling back to the rally point, an all out route, etc. NONE of those, are an end to hostilities; They're simply a rescheduling.
I saw an excellent video a while back analyzing medieval battle death statistics and this fact was extremely evident. Even in very prolonged battles, relatively few deaths occurred until one side or the other broke ranks. Keeping your soldiers in line and holding position was quite literally the primary goal of military tactics.
Had a friend who deployed during the war and because he was Motor Pool, ended up assigned to the cleanup operation. He walked into the cafeteria at college one day with two photo albums of pictures he had taken during the war, one of which was just the Highway of Death aftermath. It was not sanitized, while he didn't dwell on the subject, he had photos of charred corpses, body collection, and one unfortunate soldier who had been run over by a tank during the chaos. He knew that the press was going to keep the coverage we saw PG, so he wanted to keep his own record of what it was actually like. Not to say that he disapproved, he was just "It's war, we should be able to look the results in the eye."
18:07 I am a fan of the maxim that “Overkill is highly underrated.” Seriously, only people not engaged in the fighting can think that there is too much force employed. As a soldier your goal, besides carrying out your orders, is for you and your fellow soldiers to be able to go home at the end of the day. Usually that requires the other guys not be able to.
They had white flags and it was a deal .. then the us setup to a warcrime plan to please israel sick goverment after saddam attacked tel aviv efter israel stolen land and killed civilans Its the rat in the middle that played both sides😊
I was there, drove through it a couple of weeks later. We did NOT let them get away with what they did to Kuwait, or with all the loot. It is war, but Leftists always love to use our successes to make us look like inhuman monsters.... NEVER the other guys. And now that a Republican is President again, they will be going into the past every day to justify their hatred of us. But do you know what WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam all have in common? A Democrat in the White House, that's what. And it took a Republican to get us out of the last two. Remember that when they call the Right the "warmongers", as they are sure to do forever and ever and ever and ever.
Iraq was no underdog at the time; they had hundreds of modern Russian tanks, fighter jets and air defense systems, and many of their soldiers were combat veterans who gained experience in the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq was a bully that picked on the little guy, only to get beaten up by his much bigger older brother and all of his friends.
Any military tactician will tell you that not attacking a retreating enemy is irresponsible. It means that you are unnecessarily putting your assets at risk by allowing your enemy to organize a counter attack
I was there, huffing burning oil. I remember it like it was yesterday. Important to note, not all the Republican Guard retreated and they were removed from theater, permanently.
Thank God United States is a strong military. Remember kids history is written by the victors which indicates the strongest will survive @@runajain5773
War started because Kuwaitis refused to negotiate on interest on loans for Iran Iraq war. Ended up costing them a lot more, and we got ISIL as an outcome.
It's because they were retreating and many people think it's cowardly to fire upon a retreating enemy even if it is legal according to the Geneva convention
The Iraqis were retreating and still posed a threat on the battlefield and to war goals, which included removing Saddam's ability to counterattack or pose a wider military threat. The Gulf War involved bombing civilian bomb shelters and was conducted for some oil- baron dictators, so there's plenty to criticize there. I'm just not sure why people fixate on this like it's somehow beyond the pale.
You let your enemy leave for their home base unmolested, expecting them not to regroup, rearm, and come back at you with as much force as they can, is NOT a good idea. It is asking for more if your own to die needlessly. I do not have a problem with the highway of death. It was war. And any retaliation from Hezbolla(?) or any other terrorist organization would have happened anyway, war or not. It was (and appears to continue to be) the goal of these organizations to destroy and incite hate because of religion. ie; radical Islam versus Christianity (radical or not, Christianity doesn't advocate violent attacks). My opinion.
I patrolled through the aftermath of Hwy 80 attack on foot. My entire platoon walked through surveying the aftermath. And there were many Iraqi soldiers killed. But not nearly as many as had escaped after abandoning their vehicles. There was unexploded ordinance everywhere. Generally bomblets from cluster bombs and some iraqi stuff on trucks. Lots of stolen loot in the vehicles.
I served in Riyadh during the war and went in with the thought that "you fight a war to win". I prayed every day that my country wouldn't do to me what it had done to those in Vietnam and my prayers were answered. We fought to win and we won in decisive fashion, and I don't see The Highway of Death incident (we called it Blood Alley at the time) as being a war crime by any stretch. The war was still on going and there was no cease fire. Military vehicles are, under the rules of war, military targets, therefore, kill them all and they can't fight back. It brought about the surrender to end the war and that was the objective. General Schwarzkopf was correct in his interview, we hadn't heard them say "we surrender" yet, so the game was still on. To me, there is no such thing as proportional warfare. You do what you must to win, period. Victory through superior firepower.
When you start a War and don't understand it will come to an end for you. The Iraqi's did horrible things in Kuwait. Retreating from your crimes isn't surrendering.
There is saying. "Be merciful to the evil enemies is to be cruel to the innocent victims". Many people mind are twisted by false kindness. Many countries have break down in law and order due to this twisted mind. You see gangsters terrorising innocent victims and people want to abolish death penalty because it cruel to the evil murderer.
@@Ashley-wi4ng Yeah, I'm from Illinois and I remember how we put a moratorium on the death penalty after those journalism students started proving innocent people were on death row. Combine that with data on how minorities are more likely to receive harsher sentences and have worse access to legal representation and it's not surprising many people are against the death penalty.
This whataboutism has not made a case for endless war and blood. You're not being kind, you're just being pragmatic. Those warthogs' guns didn't run cheap, neither did the rounds. You basically shot gold bars at a bunch of muzzies because they ran and looked kinda funny to you.
True on the reason for the abolishing of the death penalty being due to false convictions. The horrific media in the United States tells us it is because idiots want to save murderers but like most things in American media, it is just bull crap stated to illicit an emotional response so that people keep watching. American news is the worst thing in America.
Don't forget what the Iraq's did to some of their own, particularly the Kurds and the so called Marsh Arabs, when they attempted an uprising following the end of that first Gulf war, and unlike the coalition, the Iraqis didn't even try to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Funny thing is, no one ever talks about that, just the legitimate air attacks carried out by America and any other coalition partners who may have taken part.
I was wrong. No crime here. They were escaping, not laying down arms and not surrendering. They were using the highway to escape and it wasn't obvious they were giving up, especially with other iraqi units in kuwait who had not surrendered.
Proportional is a concept that only exists in America, because they don't want to look bad when fighting a weaker enemy. But I can gaurantee there will be no proportions in near peer wars
I didn't see the road on TV, I was there and I walked around those destroyed vehicles. I still vividly remember what I saw there, I hope I never see anything like it again.
As someone who was around during this time; it should be remembered that before the war started there was much talk of how strong Iraq was and how many coalition casualties there were going to be.
That's probably what Saddam felt. He had the largest amount of tanks in the Middle East. His military had experienced troops. I'm sure he was feeling pretty good. He just didn't understand how powerful the US could be. I remember watching so many transport jets flying out of Travis Air Force base during the build up. I never seen transporter planes fly so low before during their take offs. They really filled those planes to their limits.
Back then I was a logistics manager for the USAF ( United States Air Force). We were called into a classified briefing and they showed video of air strikes on the attack. I think any time a country gets crazy and decides it wants to attack its neighbor - the US government should send them a copy of those videos. I guarantee it would make anybody think not just twice but many times about war and the cost of going to war.
I served in the Gulf on an Aussie frigate - we spent half the war with the Midway group..and she sent us a video called "Midways greatest hits" Video of PGM strikes by her air group. Yep..send any potential enemy that sort of thing!!!!
If the Iraqis wanted mercy, then they could have surrender. They chose the risk of a battlefield retreat instead. Zero sympathy for the retreating marauders.
Yep, and tens of thousands of them did surrender and were treated perfectly fine by coalition forces. These...were not them, lol. When the ground war started in earnest, whole units of the Iraqi military surrendered en masse.
As I recall part of the aerial campaign involved dropping leaflets advising Iraqis to surrender, I know there's nothing new in this in warfare and many soldiers regardless of what country they were fighting for over the years wouldn't take any notice of such messages but the point is they were given the chance. They had been under aerial bombardment for weeks, they must have known what to expect if they were caught in the open. They took a gamble of making a run for it and it didn't come off.
There is definitely such a thing as a reasonable level of force, even though you may be too stupid to understand it. Would you nuke the highway with an ICBM in order to destroy this column? No, because you could use A-10s instead, even though there's technically nothing stopping you from glassing the entire desert for miles around. That is what we mean by a reasonable level of force.
Classic example of Reductio ad absurdum. NOONE- other than you.. suggested a Nuclear strike in a completely conventional war. You can't hold up a straw man like that, that only YOU raised and then use it to criticise others....who did NOT. But tell us.. in a CONVENTIONAL WAR like that one... just WHAT Conventional force IS unreasonable? When the enemy is NOT surrendering, but trying to withdraw intact? Should the allies have NOT tried to close the encirclement at Falaise in 1944? Should the Soviets have allowed the 6th Army to withdraw from Stalingrad? No? So why not hit the retreating but largely intact Iraqis with everything you had in 1991?
My father was part of the Iraqi forces in that war, He faces the most difficult choices that anyone can see. His sister was married in Kuwait and has children over there, He couldn't ran away when Saddam call the army for war because he was executing the ones that ran away from service. In the same time he was so affraid on his sister. And when the coalition forces began its attack, He couldn't just surrender because my Mom was alone in Iraq - Basra. So he had to check on his sister first without being seen and then walk for days on that death highway until he reached Basra, He was bleeding badly from his feet
From the US, I love how mainstream the term "freedom units" has become. I hate our measurement system, and want that sweet metric base 10, but I can't help but smile at how the US is almost single-handedly keeping English measurements in vogue.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PTnot understanding what „sarcastically” means and using it in this context is a great proof of how braindead US education system is XD
only a US citizen would think they are the only ones doing something that originates from not the US....... FYI the US has exposed itself this last year as the worlds largest terrorist organization
This is only controversial for the naive. Ask any Kuwaiti people if, after what they had to endure during the occupation, they feel sorry for the aggressor being destroyed while retreating. The aggressor has to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget easily. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.
Your Ukrainian avatar makes you lose all credibility. Next you'll be telling me that Zelensky wasn't installed by the CIA using MKUltra mind games. Unfortunately that's the world we live in.
@@Bassquake76 maybe you should look into it and find out different. Just because the talking heads on the evening news didn't tell you about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. That only means they don't want you to know. What do you know about the Ukrainian uprising? Do you even know it happened? Do you know how Zelensky came to power? Do you know where the democratically elected president of Ukraine is today? Or what his name is? What do you know? Yeah we screwed the pooch in Ukraine during Obama's administration. That's when all the nonsense started. Joe was the point man for that crap too. So when Putin saw him become president he knew what was going to happen. Do you think he wants a NATO member state on his border? Did we want missiles in Cuba? It's good for us but suddenly not good for them? If it wasn't for double standards you'd have no standards at all.
No expert calls this a war crime. "The First Gulf War involved the US liberating Kuwait from Iraq's illegal occupation while prioritizing the reduction of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, including the infamous "highway of death." As the final report to Congress explains, “In the early hours of 27 February, CENTCOM received a report that a concentration of vehicles was forming in Kuwait City.” Concerns about these forces potentially reinforcing Republican Guard units led to a crucial decision. CINCCENT chose not to attack the Iraqi forces in Kuwait City, stating, “it could lead to substantial collateral damage to Kuwaiti civilian property” and complicate military operations. Instead, they allowed Iraqi forces to leave, engaging them in a less populated area. The report clarifies that the attack was consistent with military doctrine: “the law of war permits the attack of enemy combatants and enemy equipment at any time, wherever located, whether advancing, retreating, or standing still.”[1] [2]"
I remember being in Kuwait preparing to once more go into Iraq. Listening to the horrible stories of the invasion that never made it to the news. Men and women being put against walls and shot. Naval officers and men sealed in ships and sunk in the harbor of Kuwat naval base. Peoples children being taken from them and taken to Iraq and never being seen again. Handed pictures and asked to look for them when we got there. That is enough justification for me. We still had to go back, no matter how many people died on that road.
In view of the oil wells being lit, and various other acts of evil, I think there's little doubt that what you say is true. We heard very little of those things at the time. Why?
I remember an Air force general, It was probably Horner, on TV at the time. He said that he told his airmen before they took off to "put some hate in their hearts."
16:05 I never understood why news outlet create such emphasis of the brutality of war. Like it’s war not a boxing match. They’ll be death gruesome death.
Setting aside what you may think of the morality and justification of the event, it's important to note that this is a very vivid example of what the US Air Force is capable of when the leash is taken off of it. FAFO!
Nope, this wasn't even close to "the leash being taken off". If that were the case, there would have been no boots on the ground at all, the Air Force, if actually let loose, would have needed 0 assistance.
It was a great plan by General Schwarzkopf and the others in the upper echelon of the US military. Finally the politicians weren't trying to interfere with the people who know what they're doing. It was only at the end when politicians came back into the picture.
As a veteran of Isandlwana and also inkerman I found that you can’t afford to give the devil a foothold , and dehumanising the enemy is essential if you want to stay sane . Carry on .
I was there...saw it all. It wasn't an Iraqi army fleeing the battlefield. It was an army which completely looted Kuwait City and was running with their loot while trying to save their equipment for further use. There were couches and TV's strapped down on top of tanks, trucks full of vacuum cleaners, stolen cars full of jewelry and household goods. During the battle, I had a sense of remorse for them. That remorse vanished the next day when left our position, above the highway 2 kilometers west and went to patrol the area at sunrise. When I saw what they had stolen, the remorse was gone, it turned to anger. What kind of army does this, killing innocent Kuwaiti civilians and loots an entire city. My squad also had the honor of accompanying a Kuwaiti Lt. Col back into the city to his home, not knowing if his wife and daughters were alive or not.. I will never forget the moment he reunited with his family, all were safe.
I'm a former Australian army soldier and I once worked with a former British soldier who transferred to the Australian army. He had been there, seen it and said he still had bad dreams about seeing bodies burnt in the truck cabins still clutching the steering wheels. He said at the time he took photos, as any young soldier would do, but he destroyed them because they weren't the sort of thing you could show other people.
Fr, it is often informed and dictated by partisan media who have a vested interest in you feeling one way or another for reasons unbeknownst to the person consuming it
I don't believe in the military anymore than I believe in the media. Both of these institutions have waged war on their own. One in the form of sending our own to get killed for oil, the other wages a capaign of psychological warfare.
My personal opinion as a veteran, civilians opinions on war should be treated like a child's opinion on laws and regulations and should not be listened to outside of humanitarian aid and human rights abuses on civilians. War is war and war is hell, people who sit back in their safe and comfortable lives as civilians on the other side of the planet are ignorant to reality.
Im not fully disagreeing, but if it happened as you say it, wars would never end either Or they'd drag on far longer in most instances Civillians have a voice, one that needs to be heard Educating civillians on the matter would be the right way to go about it
@maxaudet5177 when I'm sayin their opinions should be disregarded, I'm sayin from the point of how we're fightin. Like I don't want to hear some civilian screamin about how we're bombing indiscriminately, aka "gEnOcIdE" when the whole city is nothing but bad guys and their equipment. I don't want to hear some civvie callin us baby killers because a female suicide bomber was usin her baby as a shield and we opened fire anyways.
Who thinks this is controversial? Surrendering is stopping fighting and giving yourself to be under the control of your enemy. Taking all your equipment and moving to a different location is a redeployment. It may be a retreat, but that doesn’t make you less of a target. It makes you more of a target because a retreating enemy is a vulnerable enemy and until the war ends or you surrender, you must keep fighting and expect to be attacked. Lots is Iraqis surrendered. Those on the highway of death had not. Unfortunate for them.
People need to keep in mind that the aftermath of the Gulf War saw one of the biggest "peaceful" episodes of ethnic cleansing in history. There was no systematic killing or abuse, but the Palestinian refugees Kuwait had taken in were expelled from the country for their collaboration with the Iraqi invaders. The Kuwaitis learned their lesson the hard way and the world would do well to emulate them in places like Lebanon.
That was one of the worst jobs I’ve ever done. Clearing that road of the bodies and vehicles still rides with me. You never forget that smell and the images.
Worked with veteran who had dozens of pictures of “crispy critters” he brought back from the Highway to Hell. They were told they couldn’t bring any of their pictures back, but he detailed how they split the canvas on their ditty bag, slipped the photos in, and closed the opening with a hot iron and spray starch. I can close my eyes and still see them.
@@erikkennedyNot as uncommon as you might think. My college buddy’s dad was an early US observer/trainer in Vietnam in ‘63. He had pictures of a VC his colleagues had blown up that I knew about.
I spoke to a ranger that ended up on the highway to hell he said his buddies “ratio” was worse than a German machine gunner on Omaha Beach. Neither armies truly understood how lopsided the results would be. It affected both sides mentally by unimaginable margins.
The entire reason the United States and allies stopped hostilities is because the stated objective had been completed and we were beginning to appear "unchivalrous" to expect proportional aggression is ridiculous.
Oh, the poor war criminals and invaders, retreating with their units and combat power intact after looting, murdering and graping their way through Kuwaits civilian population
I was there the day after the cease fire was declared. Myself and many other soldiers were tasked with gathering up any bodies and dragging them to mass graves where they were buried. Then they let the press in. The most horrible experience of my military tour. The military did an incredibly effective job of managing the press and what they had access to during that war. They had learned a lot from the fiasco of Panama a few years prior.
We drove through it from the north right after they plowed the vehicles aside. It was horrific. Rain was falling through the burning oil well smoke leaving a slimy mess as well. It felt like it was hell on earth. In 2004 while on leave from afghanistan we drove over the overpass at the intersection. As I looked out over the empty highway my brain superimposed the wreckage into my sight. One of the freakiest things I have experienced. That shows how powerful your brains memory can be. At other times I've been triggered back to the smells. No wonder I have become a counselor for PTSD. I've oftened wondered how many kuwaiti hostages were in that. 😢
I don't see how there's possibly controversy over this. Those were combatants who had not surrendered. Those were legitimate military targets. The fact that a large number escaped back to Iraq is a black mark for the USAF. Would it be any better if they were shooting back effectively? What if the war didn't end a couple days later and the coalition had to go all the way to Bagdad, fighting those soldiers and incurring casualties along the way? IIRC, General Schwarzkopf was asked something like "wasn't that unnecessary violence" in a press conference a couple days later and his response pretty much sums things up (paraphrasing - I haven't seen the clip in a couple years): "war is unnecessary violence." Once you start it, the goal is to kill or destroy the enemy's ability to fight.
I had a roommate that was a Marine who had to cleanup the bodies on the Highway of Death. No one really talks about that part. He was very messed up by it and said there were ton's of bodies. A great guy but really traumatized by what he saw.
I was there. The trucks were filled with every manner of stuff stolen from Kuwaiti people's houses. Furniture, clothes, ridiculous stuff that should not have been on military trucks. Grand theft (rape and murder from what I heard, but did not see directly) as a policy, not random soldiers running amuck.
I drove that road many times with the Red Cross/Red Crescent Society immediately after this event. The smell was bad and the videos don't show the massive holes in the road. It also does not show the huge number of TVs, microwave ovens, and car tires the Iraquis were trying to take back to Iraq and were throwing out of the vehicles when they realized they were in trouble.
And there are still people saying that Russia could totally take on NATO. I would like to remind you that Russia still uses the T-72 as its main tank, which is the same tank that was used during the Gulf War.
@weirdshibainu what are you talking about? If NATO invaded russia, russia would be crushed and then everyone would lose because russia would launch a full nuclear attack. Russia can't even beat ukraine in russia, you think they can stop NATO???
@@longshucksgamingone. That’s not the full Russian military machine, Putin is tip toeing around the war because his populace is not behind the effort. Rest assured with a full scale invasion, the Russian people would change their tune. Two. It probably wouldn’t be just Russia. If nato invaded as a whole. It’s likely you would see another axis of powers join them in defense. North Korea, some Russian run African countries, and likely china would kick in for their side and would open other theatres. I understand if you took just nato, and just Russia it would be a rout but that’s not how things would go down. Three. It’s not just Ukraine. If it was they would have been dog walked inside of a couple months. It’s all the logistics of nato that is keeping that war afloat.
@@weirdshibainudepends what you mean by bewt Russia. I think there would be a deal before nato reached anywhere near Moscow. If it was a total war without nukes then it wouldn't take very long to reach middle Russia. the US has strong pacific presence and could form a two front attack. Russia right now has all their eggs in the Ukraine basket and lack reserves needed to stop any strong NATO invasion. If NATO sent a missle and rocket barage russia wouldn't be able to stop it if they can't stop cesna drones
I convoyed through that area of Kuait in '05 before heading into Iraq. All those burned vehicles were still there, just pushed up against the mountains on either side. Maybe a mile or so from the side of the highway on both sides.
I moved to Kuwait in the summer of 1992. Those of us that lived there at that time called this the highway to hell. My father, who arrived in Kuwait before myself and my mother, picked up quite a few things that were left. I have Iraqi clothing, helmets, and a lot of other stuff that was left behind. I still have all of that to this day.
Not sure why it was controversial at all. They were retreating, not surrendering. Iraq was still at war with the US. If you don't want your military convoys bombed don't invade your neighbor.
@@funguseaterAI Nah I don't mind, I'm glad Kuwait wasn't annexed. F around and find out, as they say. Iraq had to learn this lesson several times.
@@funguseaterAI.Why does that matter?
Because of woke
@@Poo_Brain_HorseRussia is annexing Ukraine as we speak, but I bet you’re in the “appeasement” camp and the only reason would be is the fact that they could turn the US into glass. Morals go out the window when you meet your match huh?
Venezuela needs a reminder of exactly that.
Lesson = Retreating is not the same as surrendering.
@@coleb6474 exactly
The Iraqis were retreating and still posed a threat on the battlefield and to war goals, which included removing Saddam's ability to counterattack or pose a wider military threat. The Gulf War involved bombing civilian bomb shelters and was conducted for some oil- baron dictators, so there's plenty to criticize there. I'm just not sure why people fixate on this like it's somehow beyond the pale.
Fax 💯
I never understand why this was a controversy, but then again, people don't read or watch a whole report
@@Marvinmart1an Ideology?
"proportional warfare" is one of the dumbest oxymorons in existence. You fight a war to decimate your enemy, not to be "fair."
I get it, but it's mainly about balancing a fine line if there's a risk of heightened escalation, like with Russia. With Iraq, there wasn't really a risk of that, though, espect for the public perspective of U.S actions. Either way, it was easily justified.
Barbarians think that way. But I guess that the barbarians are at our gates, and they are US.
“Proportional warfare” sounds like a term made up by people who had lived such a comfortable life that they’ve never heard a gunshot in their life, who can sits and belittle the men and women in uniform giving themselves to protect these people’s comfortable life.
@dannyzero692 well said
Kermit and wray only have the luxury of that thinking because they never served during war and have not seen what happens when you force your own troops to abide by one-sided idiotic and dangerous rules of engagement
Former infantry here.... you can tell the people criticizing what the Coalition did never served a minute in a uniform. Retreating does NOT mean surrendering, retreating is what you do to regroup and gain a better battlefield advantage.
Yup, you’re right. That’s the problem with civilians having anything to do with war. First, they have no idea what they are talking about. Secondly, they exploit it for their own good in many cases. Let the men who wage war make the decisions. It will be a much shorter and more effective war.
Those are the same people who want endless proxy war to continue over and over.
@@SurnaturalM Sure for the longer the war the richer the industries get that support war.
Problem with vets is they never questioned the reason they are sent in tge first place and never accept responsibility for what they are a part of.
@@dasse8717 Maybe it is because we were lied to and back when there was the draft it left little choice. Wars we have fought in is because we were ordered to do so. Get rid of the soldiers and let the kings and Presidents fight it out face to face for it is they who cause the loss of life and destruction having their armies do the dirty work they are afraid to do.
Some think it's not ok to shoot a fleeing enemy who is running away to live and fight another day. Those are the same fools who think it's ok to have endless wars.
Well, no. You just see it that way because you’re simple. 😂Turns out there’s a lot of nuance to what exists in the in-between space there. What you’re positing is a total misnomer. War can absolutely be fought ethically when you’re the greater power. We don’t fight fair, it’s not a matter of simply decimating our foe, it’s a matter of punishing them, and killing innocents as consequence. We’re a nation of power and cowardice, and it’s a hell of a combo. Nothing is more dangerous than a coward with the power to act on their cowardice. That’s our legacy.
@JacobR-p4y nice word 🥗 there
@@JacobR-p4y And you're even simpler thanks to your ignorance. A lot of words trying to sound smart but everyone sees through it. You would fall for someone saying i give up only for them to stab you in the back.
@JacobR-p4y. RIIIIIIGHT! And how exactly is the US a nation of cowards?
@@JacobR-p4y Don't post anymore
If people were honest with themselves, what's shocking isn't the targets, it's the scale. If there were only a couple hundred, no one would bat an eye, but the Iraqi army was the 4th largest in the world, so thousands were involved.
Fun fact, every Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC) test has a question to trip people up: "Do you stop shooting back when the enemy stops shooting?" You kind of feel like you should answer "yes," but the correct answer is "no." The reason? They're probably just reloading, or they're retreating to a more advantageous position. The time to stop is when they're surrendering or your leadership orders you.
In the infantry’s battle drill on react to contact, the maneuver element clears the objective…shooting the opposition and bodies all the way until we pass them. So we know they’re dead. Turning back around to shoot the body would be a war crime.
@@bobspalding2477Yes and the same exact thing with armor brigades and almost every other land forces
@@McDuggets it doesn't make sense for it to be any other way.
Not anymore as they lost hundreds of thousands of their troops fighting in a bloody trenches in iran
Another possibility, as elucidated by Harold Coyle in Team Yankee, is that the now-dismounted troops are falling back to a rally point where they can receive new vehicles to fight with. If they aren't surrendering they're still a valid target.
There's this frustrating notion in conflicts that soldiers become innocent civilians the moment they don't have the upper hand. It's especially at play a lot in the Middle East for some reason. These guys would've happily done the same to coalition forces if they were given the opportunity and ability to do so. In fact the Iraqis would've done worse.
you entirely misunderstand what is wrong. it isnt that the other side wouldnt, its that that side did the terrible thing. we dont hold england accountable for the holocaust cause they werent the perpetrators. we condemn terrible actions because they are terrible, not because of who did it. thats before even getting into the fact america, bush specifically, was offering political credence to saddams government back in 1990. america elevated extremists until the logical conclusion of supporting terror cells occurred, and then doubled down and supporting even more, in order to continue the military industrial complex
Have done worse.
People forget this often 😂
It’s because liberals favor those who are less powerful, regardless of if they’re the aggressors in the first place.
That frustrates me as well. Middle Eastern media channels know exactly how to manipulate public opinion in the West, especially Al-Jazeera. They know that young liberals are weak to images of women and children in the rubble, they know that the large Muslim minority living in West can pressure governments to react in ways beneficial to the Arabs. They know that the West can’t crack down their minority or people who disagree due to the rights to free speech given to them.
What ends up happening is that Western governments can’t crack down on domestic terrorism effectively while Arab countries can just execute people for having a different opinion or being Jewish or being gays.
I find it hard to believe that people would view a fleeing enemy as anything other than a legitimate target.
As usual it's young 20-something college kids who know nothing about war, history, the legalities of war, etc. They just have to mouth-breathe their way into arguing about something they've never studied/understood/experienced. Basically...the internet.
@@tylerdatucka especially when they have other units in the area still fighting. Those on the highway could of been seen as just regrouping
Considering the amount of police brutality and racism those 20 years old have seen in the US I say they have a greater understanding of war than you
@@zainalnaima158and…? Most militaries force their people to fight. Few people volunteer to go to war, most are pulled in via drafts or levies. Being “forced to fight” doesn’t constitute oppression. There was other forms of oppression but forced military service is not that.
@@zainalnaima158so again, a legitimate military target. It’s doesn’t matter if you had a bad nights sleep, or love fighting for the Iraqi army. You picked up arms and invaded a sovereign nation. No take backs.
Notice that all the people complaining about the brutality were the losing army and journalists who are not in the military and have no real understanding about the military, tactics, etc. Most people who quote the "Rules of War" are again the losing army/country and others who have never been or wanted to be in the military.
unlike you? Patton?
I like how this also implies that you only support it because your "side" won, these comments are hysterical because you literally are the thing you're complaining about.
I was also there when engines were still running. Many of the cars were stuffed with loot (one ambulance I came across was full of weapons), including one that was full of toothbrushes and there were fewer bodies than one would imagine.
It’s not controversial or out of the norm in war. The Iraqi army didn’t surrender, so the coalition kept fighting.
I’m sick of people calling defensive wars ‘controversial’. War is and has always been inherently brutal. Deterrence is the best policy so we can avoid wars in the first place, but if that fails we still have to deal with reality.
He who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day!---Not this time!
free oil 🎉 woohoo
Wheres the WMDs?
@@romanboi3115 Wrong war, this is Desert Storm.
@@romanboi3115
You mean the chemical weapons that were in fact, found? Or do those not count because you said so?
I thought the most controversial part was the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, not the whupping that followed.
Nope. It was when a world power annihilated innocent civilians in a developing country. Wild, right? 😂 We weren’t the good guys, lil’ bro, which is genuinely remarkable considering what we were up against. Turns out life ain’t black and white and you don’t get to lean on your patriotism as a method of escaping consequence. Sorry, life ain’t as simple as, “I live in the good guy country and they live in the bad guy one.” Your privilege was paid for with blood. Accept it. Acknowledge it.
Its like schools, No one cares when some ones bullied but when they defend themselves everyone suddenly cares.
Exactly.
I like how Kuwait stole Iraqi oil by angle drilling and when Iraq complained nobody did anything.
Exactly. This modern movement of 'feels for the aggressor, just because he bit off more than he could chew' is more dangerous than the conflicts themselves. Because it only encourages more aggression, because the ramifications aren't there to dissuade them anymore.
No one is required to respond "proportionally" by an outside actor. If a nation wishes to respond within their own definition of 'proportionally' they are welcome to hold themselves accountable to that measure. Retreating enemy forces are 100% legitimate targets. Until they surrender as uniformed forces, they're fair game. Never once in the history of warfare has a nation thought 'Oh, well they're running away, guess we're done here...'. This was just a modern version of riding down your fleeing opponent with cavalry.
You can argue all day what you think someone else (or a foreign nation) "should" do...but that's all you're doing. Arguing. No one is beholden to your opinion of how they should act.
"Proportionality" is about avoiding escalation into a wider conflict.
Saddam was already at the limits of his capabilities, so proportionality shouldn't even apply to these event.
@@badluck5647exactly, all sadam could do was be angry
"Never once in the history of warfare has a nation thought 'Oh, well they're running away, guess we're done here...'."
If you look at human history, you would be surprised at how many stupid generals there were. The nations that no longer exist are some of the biggest offenders.
Yes. Ultimately, the purpose of a retreat is to avoid capture and keep the military force sufficiently intact *to be able to continue fighting in the future*. The intent of a retreat is not peace, but only to allow the retreating force to shift the battle to a time and place more advantageous to them. This is why retreating armies are considered legitimate targets.
george mcclellan could've destroyed Lee's army after the battle of antietam if he would followed and pursued them. But he sat back.
The controversy was Europe seeing this conflict was over, then immediately looking for a lever against the US once again. That entire 1991 war was an "Oh crap" moment for lots of counties, and not simply Iraq and the Soviet Union.
I agree entirely.
They had forgotten just how big the hammer is, and that was just a fraction, they may not act like it, but they KNOW. An example of this is
Putin changing nuclear doctrine right before Trump takes office, usual bluster, he KNOWS how big the hammer is.
What do you mean with "lever against the US once again" ?
@@RK-cj4oc European leaders in the late 80s and early 90s have openly talked about needing "a lever against the US." What they want is something to make the US less belligerent.
"Do not engage an enemy that is going home," retreating off the battlefield is not going home..
When the battlefield is your home, what do you do then?
@romanboi3115 pray the Americans don't turn it into a parking lot
Iraq 2003 was justifiably controversial. Iraq 1991 ... they f'd around and found out. It's about as controversial as Waterloo.
If Colon Powell wouldn't have had his Tampon in a bunch in 1991, we could have turned left at the Highway of Death and gone into Iraq to get Saddam. We could not believe it when we were told to unload, clear, and lock, the war is over. I was so ticked-off. We just captured or killed the vast majority of Saddam's army. Iraq was wide-open. Saddam could have been captured or killed in 1991. But no, Powell worried about America's image during the slaughter on the Highway of Death and got his Tampon in a twist and called cease fire. It still makes me mad that we invaded Iraq a decade later and so many Americans unnecessarily lost their lives trying to capture Saddam. All we had to do was turn left, and Operation Iraqi Freedom would likely never have happened. As far as I'm concerned, the blood of everyone who died during Iraqi Freedom is on Powell's hands.
I was only six when the war happened so I had no idea what was going on, but as I got older my understanding was that it was a complete 180 turn. First people were afraid it would be a long drawn out conflict like Vietnam, but once it became clear the Iraqi army was no match for the coalition, suddenly it's viewed as bullying a weaker nation.
Iraq 1991 is also controversial. When you look at some of the messages going on between Iraq and the US it makes it appear that the US actually "baited" Iraq into attacking Kuwait. From a strategic standpoint it would make sense since it then allows you to act like you're just responding to an aggressive country when in fact you're goal all along is to decimate their military which is a threat to your regional allies.
@@Tempus64 really... baited em...?
@@pelleif Although the US had plenty or opportunities, they never explicitly warned Iraq not to invade Kuwait. Instead, they seemed to give Iraq very vague messages regarding Kuwait and how disputes should be resolved. There was even a question by the press to the chair of the house international relations committee about whether or not the US had a pact with Kuwait to defend them if Iraq attacked and he said they didn't. Either the US was completely incompetent in terms of communicating to Iraq that they should not consider invading, or they were purposely vague so they could take out Iraq if they did invade. We're never going to know the truth.
Desert Storm was a textbook operation conducted in ideal circumstances. The sad truth is that strength deters aggression. If you are such a dove that you disarm yourself, that alone is enough to convince potential enemies to attack you. Peace would be fantastic, but it can't be maintained with just words alone
Huge amounts of work went into creating that "textbook operation". Called Desert Shield, and was a race against time. The Coalition won. This time.
@@maracohen5930and then the second time
@@cisarovnajosefina4525 The second time was a huge self-own that strengthened Iran and supercharged native anti-establishment sentiment in the US while also turning western leadership indecisive in the face of various future crises lest they find themselves in another Iraq.
@@cisarovnajosefina4525 But as long as we are dealing with a culture that makes "Martyrdom and Jihad" all holy, and are still stuck in 7th Century Literalist beliefs and values, that Islamist Supremacism, coupled with Islamonazism, as it was with Saddam,
We will have to deal with it. When the EU following their Left/Socialist/Marxist imperatives, so whether the Globalist-Absolutist stance is Secular or Religion, we will have to deal with it. It is easier to feel/believe/submit rather than think. So the Western Enlightenment/Humanist Revolution that created the US Constitution and our Republic will always have a rather nasty enemy to deal with.
tell that to Europe...their free ride has come to an end.
A retreat isn't a surrender. If the Iraqis wanted to be treated as anything other than combatants, then they would have surrendered.
This massacre lines up with historical statistics regarding battlefield routs and retreats. Most of the casualties in the battles of antiquity occurred during a rout.
Facts. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts talks about the major historical military campaigns of past empires and gives, in horrifying detail, the reality of how retreating armies just get slaughtered by the superior army while they attempt to retreat.
"A retreat, is simply advancing in another direction".
Retreating, falling back, falling back to the rally point, an all out route, etc. NONE of those, are an end to hostilities; They're simply a rescheduling.
They were going back to where they came from and leaving the territory the US launched the storm for so wasn't this the point?
I saw an excellent video a while back analyzing medieval battle death statistics and this fact was extremely evident. Even in very prolonged battles, relatively few deaths occurred until one side or the other broke ranks. Keeping your soldiers in line and holding position was quite literally the primary goal of military tactics.
@@adamredwine774Which was why the early days of WW1 were so horrific. Well, I guess the entire war.
Had a friend who deployed during the war and because he was Motor Pool, ended up assigned to the cleanup operation. He walked into the cafeteria at college one day with two photo albums of pictures he had taken during the war, one of which was just the Highway of Death aftermath. It was not sanitized, while he didn't dwell on the subject, he had photos of charred corpses, body collection, and one unfortunate soldier who had been run over by a tank during the chaos. He knew that the press was going to keep the coverage we saw PG, so he wanted to keep his own record of what it was actually like. Not to say that he disapproved, he was just "It's war, we should be able to look the results in the eye."
18:07 I am a fan of the maxim that “Overkill is highly underrated.” Seriously, only people not engaged in the fighting can think that there is too much force employed. As a soldier your goal, besides carrying out your orders, is for you and your fellow soldiers to be able to go home at the end of the day. Usually that requires the other guys not be able to.
This is the exact mentality that enables war crimes, 'never enough blood'
Since when is firing on retreating forces that are still armed and armored not a legitimate use of military force?
They had white flags and it was a deal .. then the us setup to a warcrime plan to please israel sick goverment after saddam attacked tel aviv efter israel stolen land and killed civilans
Its the rat in the middle that played both sides😊
Since empty headed self-important cowards decided they are the arbiters of legitimacy.
Since the Soviet Union and Western Europe started craping their pants over how effective the US military technology investment was turning out.
Bad optics, 2003 even worse
Leftists hate watching their own country succeed. It’s weird.
Some people get so attached to "underdogs" that they forget all other context.
I was there, drove through it a couple of weeks later. We did NOT let them get away with what they did to Kuwait, or with all the loot.
It is war, but Leftists always love to use our successes to make us look like inhuman monsters.... NEVER the other guys.
And now that a Republican is President again, they will be going into the past every day to justify their hatred of us. But do you know what WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam all have in common?
A Democrat in the White House, that's what. And it took a Republican to get us out of the last two.
Remember that when they call the Right the "warmongers", as they are sure to do forever and ever and ever and ever.
Also "America always and everywhere bad"
Gays for gaza
Iraq was no underdog at the time; they had hundreds of modern Russian tanks, fighter jets and air defense systems, and many of their soldiers were combat veterans who gained experience in the Iran/Iraq war.
Iraq was a bully that picked on the little guy, only to get beaten up by his much bigger older brother and all of his friends.
@@ManiaMac1613 That's the context most of the people who are mad about the Highway are missing.
Don't cry for your enemies Simon.
Any military tactician will tell you that not attacking a retreating enemy is irresponsible. It means that you are unnecessarily putting your assets at risk by allowing your enemy to organize a counter attack
It was one of the first televised examples of the "find out" portion of the lesson.
I was there, huffing burning oil. I remember it like it was yesterday. Important to note, not all the Republican Guard retreated and they were removed from theater, permanently.
Thank you for your service.
If you don't mind me asking, how young were you? First action? Or were you battle hardened?
@ believe it or not, but I turned 21 in Kuwait. However, it wasn’t my first rodeo, as I was 19 and combat jumping just past 2am, into Panama in 89.
Thank you.
@@VentureNW panama must have been nuts.
"if we're big enough to fight a war, we should also be big enough to look at it."
Words to live by....
The picture isn't even that terrible.
@@armlegxSomeone grew up watching Live Leak.
@@codyaragon93 I remember stileproject
@@armlegx
The experience wasn't a walk in the park. The smell of burning oil and rotting human flesh doesn't just go away.
@@wolfman515It has nothing on Afghanistan, that was war, cavemen with AKs, then we just leave those people to die....
Completely justified and not a war crime at all.
destroying not all of them should be considert a "war crime"
It is just a criminal Western morality, just like Israel exactly.
@@RidingTheKhaliYugait not war crime if you winning side
Don't start shit won't be no shit.
Thank God United States is a strong military. Remember kids history is written by the victors which indicates the strongest will survive @@runajain5773
There is no morality in war, the enemy surrenders or dies....they didn't surrender...so they die.
The problem with viewing combat operations emotionally. People get upset when they see an ass kicking.
Crispy critters are part of war. Don't start one won't be one.
War started because Kuwaitis refused to negotiate on interest on loans for Iran Iraq war. Ended up costing them a lot more, and we got ISIL as an outcome.
Saddam was a good friend of Ronald Reagan. Those of us who watched the war on TV remember well.
Retreating isn't the same as surrender
Fair game
So it's ok when the US does it, but when alqaeda does it, it's wrong
I don’t see how it’s controversial. They were in the find out stage of FAFO. Get what’s coming to you.
It's because they were retreating and many people think it's cowardly to fire upon a retreating enemy even if it is legal according to the Geneva convention
@@Giveme1goodreason they can call it controversial since civilians were in the mix.
The Iraqis were retreating and still posed a threat on the battlefield and to war goals, which included removing Saddam's ability to counterattack or pose a wider military threat. The Gulf War involved bombing civilian bomb shelters and was conducted for some oil- baron dictators, so there's plenty to criticize there. I'm just not sure why people fixate on this like it's somehow beyond the pale.
@@matthewmiller6568 retreating enemies arent protected. womp womp
You let your enemy leave for their home base unmolested, expecting them not to regroup, rearm, and come back at you with as much force as they can, is NOT a good idea. It is asking for more if your own to die needlessly. I do not have a problem with the highway of death. It was war. And any retaliation from Hezbolla(?) or any other terrorist organization would have happened anyway, war or not. It was (and appears to continue to be) the goal of these organizations to destroy and incite hate because of religion. ie; radical Islam versus Christianity (radical or not, Christianity doesn't advocate violent attacks). My opinion.
I patrolled through the aftermath of Hwy 80 attack on foot. My entire platoon walked through surveying the aftermath. And there were many Iraqi soldiers killed. But not nearly as many as had escaped after abandoning their vehicles. There was unexploded ordinance everywhere. Generally bomblets from cluster bombs and some iraqi stuff on trucks. Lots of stolen loot in the vehicles.
I served in Riyadh during the war and went in with the thought that "you fight a war to win". I prayed every day that my country wouldn't do to me what it had done to those in Vietnam and my prayers were answered. We fought to win and we won in decisive fashion, and I don't see The Highway of Death incident (we called it Blood Alley at the time) as being a war crime by any stretch. The war was still on going and there was no cease fire. Military vehicles are, under the rules of war, military targets, therefore, kill them all and they can't fight back. It brought about the surrender to end the war and that was the objective. General Schwarzkopf was correct in his interview, we hadn't heard them say "we surrender" yet, so the game was still on. To me, there is no such thing as proportional warfare. You do what you must to win, period. Victory through superior firepower.
When you start a War and don't understand it will come to an end for you. The Iraqi's did horrible things in Kuwait. Retreating from your crimes isn't surrendering.
Same for gaza and later lebanon,
When you start or join a war, you have to be ready to take responsibility.
@@ouriel181brainlet take to justify genocide...you should do some soul searching
@@ouriel181 you're a dumb, vile human being
@chemiKalz nothing you can ever do to stop victory 🇮🇱🇮🇱😊
@ouriel181 they always have victim card 😂
There is saying. "Be merciful to the evil enemies is to be cruel to the innocent victims". Many people mind are twisted by false kindness. Many countries have break down in law and order due to this twisted mind. You see gangsters terrorising innocent victims and people want to abolish death penalty because it cruel to the evil murderer.
abolishing the death penalty has more to do with false conviction rates not being 0 then protecting murderers.....
@@Ashley-wi4ng Yeah, I'm from Illinois and I remember how we put a moratorium on the death penalty after those journalism students started proving innocent people were on death row. Combine that with data on how minorities are more likely to receive harsher sentences and have worse access to legal representation and it's not surprising many people are against the death penalty.
This whataboutism has not made a case for endless war and blood. You're not being kind, you're just being pragmatic. Those warthogs' guns didn't run cheap, neither did the rounds. You basically shot gold bars at a bunch of muzzies because they ran and looked kinda funny to you.
True on the reason for the abolishing of the death penalty being due to false convictions. The horrific media in the United States tells us it is because idiots want to save murderers but like most things in American media, it is just bull crap stated to illicit an emotional response so that people keep watching. American news is the worst thing in America.
Don't forget what the Iraq's did to some of their own, particularly the Kurds and the so called Marsh Arabs, when they attempted an uprising following the end of that first Gulf war, and unlike the coalition, the Iraqis didn't even try to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Funny thing is, no one ever talks about that, just the legitimate air attacks carried out by America and any other coalition partners who may have taken part.
I was wrong. No crime here. They were escaping, not laying down arms and not surrendering. They were using the highway to escape and it wasn't obvious they were giving up, especially with other iraqi units in kuwait who had not surrendered.
You dont fight a war to be fair you fight it to win. Im so tired of proportional warfare
Proportional is a concept that only exists in America, because they don't want to look bad when fighting a weaker enemy. But I can gaurantee there will be no proportions in near peer wars
I didn't see the road on TV, I was there and I walked around those destroyed vehicles. I still vividly remember what I saw there, I hope I never see anything like it again.
As someone who was around during this time; it should be remembered that before the war started there was much talk of how strong Iraq was and how many coalition casualties there were going to be.
Yeah kind of like how the Russian Army was talked about before they became the 2nd Best Army in Ukraine.
That's probably what Saddam felt. He had the largest amount of tanks in the Middle East. His military had experienced troops. I'm sure he was feeling pretty good. He just didn't understand how powerful the US could be. I remember watching so many transport jets flying out of Travis Air Force base during the build up. I never seen transporter planes fly so low before during their take offs. They really filled those planes to their limits.
Back then I was a logistics manager for the USAF ( United States Air Force). We were called into a classified briefing and they showed video of air strikes on the attack. I think any time a country gets crazy and decides it wants to attack its neighbor - the US government should send them a copy of those videos. I guarantee it would make anybody think not just twice but many times about war and the cost of going to war.
Link? Joking, partially
I served in the Gulf on an Aussie frigate - we spent half the war with the Midway group..and she sent us a video called "Midways greatest hits" Video of PGM strikes by her air group. Yep..send any potential enemy that sort of thing!!!!
@@kingschwag4208 No link - videos were “too gruesome “ for public release
If the Iraqis wanted mercy, then they could have surrender. They chose the risk of a battlefield retreat instead.
Zero sympathy for the retreating marauders.
Yep, and tens of thousands of them did surrender and were treated perfectly fine by coalition forces. These...were not them, lol. When the ground war started in earnest, whole units of the Iraqi military surrendered en masse.
@@oskar6661I think it was even referred to as the mother of all surrenders!
As I recall part of the aerial campaign involved dropping leaflets advising Iraqis to surrender, I know there's nothing new in this in warfare and many soldiers regardless of what country they were fighting for over the years wouldn't take any notice of such messages but the point is they were given the chance. They had been under aerial bombardment for weeks, they must have known what to expect if they were caught in the open. They took a gamble of making a run for it and it didn't come off.
@@oskar6661 Yes. Some of them even waves a white flag at a drone that was surveying them.
I will never understand what a "reasonable level of force" is supposed to mean in a war. Violence of action is over hslf the battle.
Ive always thought a "reasonable level of force" against an armed and organised enemy was "everything you have".
There is definitely such a thing as a reasonable level of force, even though you may be too stupid to understand it. Would you nuke the highway with an ICBM in order to destroy this column? No, because you could use A-10s instead, even though there's technically nothing stopping you from glassing the entire desert for miles around. That is what we mean by a reasonable level of force.
Classic example of Reductio ad absurdum. NOONE- other than you.. suggested a Nuclear strike in a completely conventional war. You can't hold up a straw man like that, that only YOU raised and then use it to criticise others....who did NOT. But tell us.. in a CONVENTIONAL WAR like that one... just WHAT Conventional force IS unreasonable? When the enemy is NOT surrendering, but trying to withdraw intact? Should the allies have NOT tried to close the encirclement at Falaise in 1944? Should the Soviets have allowed the 6th Army to withdraw from Stalingrad? No? So why not hit the retreating but largely intact Iraqis with everything you had in 1991?
As someone who was there, I appreciate the tactical military decisions made, but the things I saw still wake me up at night.
War is hell, but surrendering to prevent "war" when someone attacks doesn't end in peace, it ends in subjugation.
And yet some people are still yapping about Russian sovereignty
That's the main lesson from Europe in the 1930s.
My father was part of the Iraqi forces in that war, He faces the most difficult choices that anyone can see.
His sister was married in Kuwait and has children over there, He couldn't ran away when Saddam call the army for war because he was executing the ones that ran away from service. In the same time he was so affraid on his sister. And when the coalition forces began its attack, He couldn't just surrender because my Mom was alone in Iraq - Basra. So he had to check on his sister first without being seen and then walk for days on that death highway until he reached Basra, He was bleeding badly from his feet
It's unfortunate that these things happen.
When you condoned violence, don’t cry when violence done onto you….
Typical bully mentality. Putin is pulling the same thing right now.
Those who believe it was wrong should skip their delusional mind to the nearest recruiting office and enlist.
Simon, if you don't address your bleeding heart you're going to flatline, and it's it going to be hard to get to you up there on that high horse.
This sort of event is generally called a "reset to factory settings."
Return to raw materials.
From the US, I love how mainstream the term "freedom units" has become. I hate our measurement system, and want that sweet metric base 10, but I can't help but smile at how the US is almost single-handedly keeping English measurements in vogue.
Well, we do use it sarcastically 😂
Breaking it down in barley corns
@@usergiodmsilva1983PTnot understanding what „sarcastically” means and using it in this context is a great proof of how braindead US education system is XD
What's mainstream is the continual taking the piss out of the USA by calling out "freedom units". It's ridicule.
only a US citizen would think they are the only ones doing something that originates from not the US....... FYI the US has exposed itself this last year as the worlds largest terrorist organization
This is only controversial for the naive. Ask any Kuwaiti people if, after what they had to endure during the occupation, they feel sorry for the aggressor being destroyed while retreating. The aggressor has to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget easily. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.
Your Ukrainian avatar makes you lose all credibility. Next you'll be telling me that Zelensky wasn't installed by the CIA using MKUltra mind games. Unfortunately that's the world we live in.
@@1pcfred😂😂😂😂
@@1pcfred Russian bot, hahaha
@@1pcfred 😄 Gotta be a joke?!
@@Bassquake76 maybe you should look into it and find out different. Just because the talking heads on the evening news didn't tell you about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. That only means they don't want you to know. What do you know about the Ukrainian uprising? Do you even know it happened? Do you know how Zelensky came to power? Do you know where the democratically elected president of Ukraine is today? Or what his name is? What do you know? Yeah we screwed the pooch in Ukraine during Obama's administration. That's when all the nonsense started. Joe was the point man for that crap too. So when Putin saw him become president he knew what was going to happen. Do you think he wants a NATO member state on his border? Did we want missiles in Cuba? It's good for us but suddenly not good for them? If it wasn't for double standards you'd have no standards at all.
No expert calls this a war crime. "The First Gulf War involved the US liberating Kuwait from Iraq's illegal occupation while prioritizing the reduction of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, including the infamous "highway of death." As the final report to Congress explains, “In the early hours of 27 February, CENTCOM received a report that a concentration of vehicles was forming in Kuwait City.” Concerns about these forces potentially reinforcing Republican Guard units led to a crucial decision. CINCCENT chose not to attack the Iraqi forces in Kuwait City, stating, “it could lead to substantial collateral damage to Kuwaiti civilian property” and complicate military operations. Instead, they allowed Iraqi forces to leave, engaging them in a less populated area. The report clarifies that the attack was consistent with military doctrine: “the law of war permits the attack of enemy combatants and enemy equipment at any time, wherever located, whether advancing, retreating, or standing still.”[1] [2]"
I was there. When I smell a diesel truck, I smell burning bodies.
I remember being in Kuwait preparing to once more go into Iraq. Listening to the horrible stories of the invasion that never made it to the news. Men and women being put against walls and shot. Naval officers and men sealed in ships and sunk in the harbor of Kuwat naval base. Peoples children being taken from them and taken to Iraq and never being seen again. Handed pictures and asked to look for them when we got there. That is enough justification for me. We still had to go back, no matter how many people died on that road.
In view of the oil wells being lit, and various other acts of evil, I think there's little doubt that what you say is true. We heard very little of those things at the time. Why?
Tbf that incubator story was pure bs
War is hell but it wasn't a crime it was war
I remember an Air force general, It was probably Horner, on TV at the time. He said that he told his airmen before they took off to "put some hate in their hearts."
What the orders were: "Stop the Convoy."
What the US Airforce heard: "Hehe... Smoke em."
What the hell else is the Air Force going to do? Pull their jets over and direct traffic?
An eye for an eye doesn't make the whole world blind. It makes the whole world polite.
16:05 I never understood why news outlet create such emphasis of the brutality of war. Like it’s war not a boxing match. They’ll be death gruesome death.
@@victoradebanjo3565 for view. Their job is to get as many watching as possible.
Yeah peole in the media almost have a mindset that if soldier don't line up and shoot at each other like durring the musket times then its ilegal.
the west lets women have a vote
@@GrimSower
The East complains about proportionality
@@pugasaurusrex8253 that's only because of Muh "Military Industial Complx" 😆
It wasn't our fault that the enemy decided to mix in with civilians. This happens in every war.
Setting aside what you may think of the morality and justification of the event, it's important to note that this is a very vivid example of what the US Air Force is capable of when the leash is taken off of it. FAFO!
Nope, this wasn't even close to "the leash being taken off". If that were the case, there would have been no boots on the ground at all, the Air Force, if actually let loose, would have needed 0 assistance.
It was a great plan by General Schwarzkopf and the others in the upper echelon of the US military. Finally the politicians weren't trying to interfere with the people who know what they're doing. It was only at the end when politicians came back into the picture.
As a veteran of Isandlwana and also inkerman I found that you can’t afford to give the devil a foothold , and dehumanising the enemy is essential if you want to stay sane . Carry on .
I was there...saw it all. It wasn't an Iraqi army fleeing the battlefield. It was an army which completely looted Kuwait City and was running with their loot while trying to save their equipment for further use. There were couches and TV's strapped down on top of tanks, trucks full of vacuum cleaners, stolen cars full of jewelry and household goods. During the battle, I had a sense of remorse for them. That remorse vanished the next day when left our position, above the highway 2 kilometers west and went to patrol the area at sunrise. When I saw what they had stolen, the remorse was gone, it turned to anger. What kind of army does this, killing innocent Kuwaiti civilians and loots an entire city. My squad also had the honor of accompanying a Kuwaiti Lt. Col back into the city to his home, not knowing if his wife and daughters were alive or not.. I will never forget the moment he reunited with his family, all were safe.
I'm a former Australian army soldier and I once worked with a former British soldier who transferred to the Australian army. He had been there, seen it and said he still had bad dreams about seeing bodies burnt in the truck cabins still clutching the steering wheels. He said at the time he took photos, as any young soldier would do, but he destroyed them because they weren't the sort of thing you could show other people.
What a panzy
Public Opinion is one of the worst things invented
Fr, it is often informed and dictated by partisan media who have a vested interest in you feeling one way or another for reasons unbeknownst to the person consuming it
You can always move to Russia or North Korea. I hear they believe the same thing as you do.
Exactly, we need to ban all free speech /s
I don't believe in the military anymore than I believe in the media. Both of these institutions have waged war on their own. One in the form of sending our own to get killed for oil, the other wages a capaign of psychological warfare.
It’s literally a fundamental right how the hell is the worst thing invented ?
My personal opinion as a veteran, civilians opinions on war should be treated like a child's opinion on laws and regulations and should not be listened to outside of humanitarian aid and human rights abuses on civilians. War is war and war is hell, people who sit back in their safe and comfortable lives as civilians on the other side of the planet are ignorant to reality.
Im not fully disagreeing, but if it happened as you say it, wars would never end either
Or they'd drag on far longer in most instances
Civillians have a voice, one that needs to be heard
Educating civillians on the matter would be the right way to go about it
@maxaudet5177 when I'm sayin their opinions should be disregarded, I'm sayin from the point of how we're fightin. Like I don't want to hear some civilian screamin about how we're bombing indiscriminately, aka "gEnOcIdE" when the whole city is nothing but bad guys and their equipment. I don't want to hear some civvie callin us baby killers because a female suicide bomber was usin her baby as a shield and we opened fire anyways.
You probably justify killing civilians.
That’s not how it works buddy 🤦♂️🤣
@@maxaudet5177 Are you kidding? Civilians are the ones who demand we start wars!
The consequences of a country punching way above its weight.
19:39 would that sniper be talking like that if it were his army that was dishing out the pounding to the coalition forces?
Who thinks this is controversial? Surrendering is stopping fighting and giving yourself to be under the control of your enemy. Taking all your equipment and moving to a different location is a redeployment. It may be a retreat, but that doesn’t make you less of a target. It makes you more of a target because a retreating enemy is a vulnerable enemy and until the war ends or you surrender, you must keep fighting and expect to be attacked. Lots is Iraqis surrendered. Those on the highway of death had not. Unfortunate for them.
People need to keep in mind that the aftermath of the Gulf War saw one of the biggest "peaceful" episodes of ethnic cleansing in history. There was no systematic killing or abuse, but the Palestinian refugees Kuwait had taken in were expelled from the country for their collaboration with the Iraqi invaders. The Kuwaitis learned their lesson the hard way and the world would do well to emulate them in places like Lebanon.
Definitely, just give them back their land, homes and lives. And stop using weapons of mass media to persecute them.
@@BobSmith-rp2oz You mean the land they invaded and took from the Jews living there at the time? Let's give that a big NO.
Or the UK and Canada. The British and the Canadians will find out first hand how Palesrinians bite the hands that feed them.
Palestinians were just no good no matter wherever they went
@@BobSmith-rp2oz The only thing keeping them as refugees is them. Israel has a significant Arab population, and they are not second-class citizens.
I guess it’s controversial when the good guys commit violence
violence in war is inexcusable
@@florida-man_850 Bullshit. Passivism in the face of war is simply allowing the aggressors to win.
@ nonviolence in war is just getting your ass kicked
You sound like an angry sandman... Perhaps you should see the Sun as well ✌️
@@florida-man_850sure bro people throw tomato and candies at each other when wars are declared.
This is a PERFECT example of “F**k around and find out”!
That was one of the worst jobs I’ve ever done. Clearing that road of the bodies and vehicles still rides with me. You never forget that smell and the images.
Retreating Armies can regroup. If Meade had perused Lee's Retreating Army after Gettysburg, the war would have ended there.
McClellan after Antietam, too.
Worked with veteran who had dozens of pictures of “crispy critters” he brought back from the Highway to Hell. They were told they couldn’t bring any of their pictures back, but he detailed how they split the canvas on their ditty bag, slipped the photos in, and closed the opening with a hot iron and spray starch. I can close my eyes and still see them.
Why would someone want a souvenir like that?
@ Tell a grunt he can’t do something and they’ll move heaven & earth to do it.
@@erikkennedyNot as uncommon as you might think. My college buddy’s dad was an early US observer/trainer in Vietnam in ‘63. He had pictures of a VC his colleagues had blown up that I knew about.
@@erikkennedy Some things need to be remembered.
I spoke to a ranger that ended up on the highway to hell he said his buddies “ratio” was worse than a German machine gunner on Omaha Beach. Neither armies truly understood how lopsided the results would be. It affected both sides mentally by unimaginable margins.
Very interesting material thank you ❤
The entire reason the United States and allies stopped hostilities is because the stated objective had been completed and we were beginning to appear "unchivalrous" to expect proportional aggression is ridiculous.
When the UN actually did something other than pointless talk
The US just let the UN hold on to our coattails.
I lived in Dubai at this time. I met some American Air Force pilots. They said shooting Iraqis on that road '' was like shooting fish in a barrel ''
Awwww poor invaders… 😢
@@murrayeldred3563 they should of surrendered
Oh, the poor war criminals and invaders, retreating with their units and combat power intact after looting, murdering and graping their way through Kuwaits civilian population
@@coleb6474doesn’t seem like they were looking for sympathy
probably the worst thing you can do in a conflict like that is to line up on a highway.
9:47 completely justified, ‘If they haven’t got it, they can’t use it’
I was there the day after the cease fire was declared. Myself and many other soldiers were tasked with gathering up any bodies and dragging them to mass graves where they were buried. Then they let the press in. The most horrible experience of my military tour. The military did an incredibly effective job of managing the press and what they had access to during that war. They had learned a lot from the fiasco of Panama a few years prior.
We drove through it from the north right after they plowed the vehicles aside. It was horrific. Rain was falling through the burning oil well smoke leaving a slimy mess as well. It felt like it was hell on earth. In 2004 while on leave from afghanistan we drove over the overpass at the intersection. As I looked out over the empty highway my brain superimposed the wreckage into my sight. One of the freakiest things I have experienced. That shows how powerful your brains memory can be. At other times I've been triggered back to the smells. No wonder I have become a counselor for PTSD. I've oftened wondered how many kuwaiti hostages were in that. 😢
One of the worst details I’ve ever been on was the clean up
@aircav28 mortuary affairs was overwhelmed so they asked for volunteers. I didn't. The guys that did still have some issues.
My dad says the same thing about the smell. A mix of burning oil and flesh.
I walked patrol in Basra for months and met Iraqis who fought Sadam for their freedom.
They were very broken people.
I don't see how there's possibly controversy over this. Those were combatants who had not surrendered. Those were legitimate military targets. The fact that a large number escaped back to Iraq is a black mark for the USAF. Would it be any better if they were shooting back effectively? What if the war didn't end a couple days later and the coalition had to go all the way to Bagdad, fighting those soldiers and incurring casualties along the way?
IIRC, General Schwarzkopf was asked something like "wasn't that unnecessary violence" in a press conference a couple days later and his response pretty much sums things up (paraphrasing - I haven't seen the clip in a couple years): "war is unnecessary violence." Once you start it, the goal is to kill or destroy the enemy's ability to fight.
It's really quite simple: Euros hate America, and they hate Americans.
The sooner we really grok that, the better... for us.
"War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse."
I had a roommate that was a Marine who had to cleanup the bodies on the Highway of Death. No one really talks about that part. He was very messed up by it and said there were ton's of bodies. A great guy but really traumatized by what he saw.
I was there. The trucks were filled with every manner of stuff stolen from Kuwaiti people's houses. Furniture, clothes, ridiculous stuff that should not have been on military trucks. Grand theft (rape and murder from what I heard, but did not see directly) as a policy, not random soldiers running amuck.
As we both know....
"Rags" steal anything not guarded by the gun
I drove that road many times with the Red Cross/Red Crescent Society immediately after this event. The smell was bad and the videos don't show the massive holes in the road. It also does not show the huge number of TVs, microwave ovens, and car tires the Iraquis were trying to take back to Iraq and were throwing out of the vehicles when they realized they were in trouble.
And there are still people saying that Russia could totally take on NATO. I would like to remind you that Russia still uses the T-72 as its main tank, which is the same tank that was used during the Gulf War.
If NATO invaded Russia, NATO would lose. If Russia invaded Poland, Russia would lose.
@weirdshibainu what are you talking about? If NATO invaded russia, russia would be crushed and then everyone would lose because russia would launch a full nuclear attack. Russia can't even beat ukraine in russia, you think they can stop NATO???
I don't think Russia could take on Poland alone. Especially if they (Poland) keep up their military buildup.
@@longshucksgamingone. That’s not the full Russian military machine, Putin is tip toeing around the war because his populace is not behind the effort. Rest assured with a full scale invasion, the Russian people would change their tune.
Two. It probably wouldn’t be just Russia. If nato invaded as a whole. It’s likely you would see another axis of powers join them in defense. North Korea, some Russian run African countries, and likely china would kick in for their side and would open other theatres. I understand if you took just nato, and just Russia it would be a rout but that’s not how things would go down.
Three. It’s not just Ukraine. If it was they would have been dog walked inside of a couple months. It’s all the logistics of nato that is keeping that war afloat.
@@weirdshibainudepends what you mean by bewt Russia. I think there would be a deal before nato reached anywhere near Moscow. If it was a total war without nukes then it wouldn't take very long to reach middle Russia. the US has strong pacific presence and could form a two front attack. Russia right now has all their eggs in the Ukraine basket and lack reserves needed to stop any strong NATO invasion. If NATO sent a missle and rocket barage russia wouldn't be able to stop it if they can't stop cesna drones
Great video. Appreciate you talking quickly to make your points
Outstanding video. One correction, GEN Powell was Bush 43’s Secretary of State, not his Nat’l Sec Adv.
No controversy, war is war. You fight like dogs and all rules are off.
Except, all rules most definitely AREN'T off.... you are actively on the internet reading this, try doing research with it.
@captainspaulding5963 shut up but ch
0:45 I’m an American and I approve this message
I convoyed through that area of Kuait in '05 before heading into Iraq. All those burned vehicles were still there, just pushed up against the mountains on either side. Maybe a mile or so from the side of the highway on both sides.
I moved to Kuwait in the summer of 1992. Those of us that lived there at that time called this the highway to hell. My father, who arrived in Kuwait before myself and my mother, picked up quite a few things that were left. I have Iraqi clothing, helmets, and a lot of other stuff that was left behind. I still have all of that to this day.
Great reporting and I like this guy's style. Bravo
Last time I was this early, I really disappointed my wife...
lmaoo
Thief!!!! That's my thing!!! Lol!
We all been there man😂
@@thekidfromcleveland3944 I've never disappointed his wife!
@@crystalmethkingtweakers never disappoint anyone. Come over to the dairy side it's much more mild