Yes.
Iraq took its time retreating (or more so, they were forced to retreat after taking their time) so why did the US attack them after they finally retreat as planned?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare blames Russia for the Tariq Almawt' bombings (AKA Highway of Death)
- Thread starter Deleted member 51539
- Start date
Iraq took its time retreating (or more so, they were forced to retreat after taking their time) so why did the US attack them after they finally retreat as planned?
"You see that real thing, that warcrime that happened?
Well it wasn't us it was them! And we're telling you this in one of the
biggest games of the year."
This is war propaganda and is makes me sick.
Even more so, because this game plot plays in a war that
is still going on and started because the US started this
several decades back
Well it wasn't us it was them! And we're telling you this in one of the
biggest games of the year."
This is war propaganda and is makes me sick.
Even more so, because this game plot plays in a war that
is still going on and started because the US started this
several decades back
Because there was no peace, they had military equipment capable of war and there was no clear intentions they were surrendering.
You're moving the goalposts by the way. You said the Highway of Death was a war crime, now you're just complaining about the morality of firing on a retreating army, which as explained isn't actually an issue in any way, especially one that is armed and has made no effort of showing they are surrendering.
If you don't want to be treated as a hostile, you surrender. Pretending that a resolution adopted by countries seven months ago and retreating only after the US enters the war via Desert Storm in January is justification and that they had any intention of following the UN resolution.
I am not.
It is a war crime if there was a resolution in place. They had a plan to retreat and when they finally did it they were attacked. And how else would they even show they are not going to attack anyone? Leave the military equipment in Kuwait? No country would be stupid enough to do that.
This is an interesting thread. Did a little googling on the topic, people have debated this for years but looks like the distinction is really that since the Iraqi forces were still using their tanks and other military equipment, they're valid targets.
"A civilian lawyer, Charles Patrizia, of Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker, drew the same distinction.
"A retreating army is not an army which has surrendered," he said. "It may have lost a battle, but may yet seek to regroup and counterattack. Those troops, to the degree that they are armed or could be considered by the opposing forces to be armed, are still bound by the rules of war."" - https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/27/...he-rules-experts-back-us-on-rules-of-war.html
Retreating isn't the same as surrendering. The Iraqi loot train heading down Highway 80 wasn't waving the white flag. Most of the actual soldiers bailed out of their vehicles once the coalition air power showed up.
I'd say the US Army burying people alive is a much better thing to argue about.
I'd say the US Army burying people alive is a much better thing to argue about.
Yeah this is my take also. The US is probably committing war crimes on a regular basis in some way, as does most other nations but the difference is that Russia is a fucked nation that clearly wants to destabilize the world to suit Putin's needs(Us does this also with oil and changing governments for their needs), just one example might be compromising democracy in the west because then Putin can say "look rigged elections or whatever happens in other countries too, chill guys)
The US is mostly doing the dirty work for the better of the western world, even tho playing world police is more and more tiring for the rest of us and the fact that they usually end up creating another problem along the way. I'm not American, i'm from Sweden and as most of you know we are located near Russia and get harassed all the time by the Russian government and military.
it is, indeed. a large number of younger cod players will now associate the terms 'highway of death' & 'haditha' with russian atrocities, because it'll be in the context of playing this game that they first became familiar with them. pretty damn amazing...
Rofl, you're making excuses for an invading army that violated Kuwait's sovereignty and only retreated in the face of the US and Co. entering the war via Desert Storm. They didn't take six months to retreat, they spent the time parked in Kuwait waging war and occupying it.
The underlined is Iraq's issue, that's their choice to not leave their equipment and have a complete unconditional surrender when they realized they were fucked when the US and the coalition entered the war.
Like, your argument is "won't anyone think about Iraq!?" in the face of retreating from a war they started, they kept waging and only attempted to retreat half a year after a resolution that was clearly meant to be used to force a retreat during the initial days/weeks of the war, not some type of shield six months after the fact when they are on the losing side.
A war crime has specific terms and requirements to be a war crime. Your own personal definition has no basis in the reality of what happened or the reality of how armies treat retreating, armed forces.
I think it's supposed to be a generic term here for a highway decimated through air power. Though I would ask why exactly a country in the Caucasuses speaks Arabic to begin with.
I mean, more on point... it very much is skirting the issues of war crimes America and its allies have committed. Like at most it deals with the issue of blowback and pragmatic decisions cynical operators make but obviously it doesn't dwell on it nearly as much as Russian atrocities. I enjoy it for what it is but I can definitely see how anti-Imperialists take issue with it.
(If anything Bloops II was more critical of US foreign policy, since it shows you supporting Noriega's goons in one mission and then taking him down in the next. Still limp wristed in the grand scale of things though since ultimately 'the liberal global order' is treated as an unquestioned good and not problematized. (Mean that in a Leftist sense, if that isn't clear))
I mean, more on point... it very much is skirting the issues of war crimes America and its allies have committed. Like at most it deals with the issue of blowback and pragmatic decisions cynical operators make but obviously it doesn't dwell on it nearly as much as Russian atrocities. I enjoy it for what it is but I can definitely see how anti-Imperialists take issue with it.
(If anything Bloops II was more critical of US foreign policy, since it shows you supporting Noriega's goons in one mission and then taking him down in the next. Still limp wristed in the grand scale of things though since ultimately 'the liberal global order' is treated as an unquestioned good and not problematized. (Mean that in a Leftist sense, if that isn't clear))
Last edited:
That's not a war crime as they were still being treated as enemy combatant. Some argued that they were complying with the U.N demands and does not warrant the air strikes, but as TheLostBigBoss puts it, they complied way after the demands.
What is the war crime is the amount of refugees killed during the bombing as the Iraqis had a number with them. Unknown numbers were killed. Whether they knew beforehand or after, I don't know.
Interviewer: What's the story about?
Dev: A very relevant contemporary war story.
Interviewer: Is this game political?
Dev (with a straight face): No
Interviewer: Really?
Dev: No
Interviewer: Really?
Dev: No, we're just making games
Interviewer: That seems insane!
Dev (same straight face): It seems insane to get political to me
So you see, this game is totally not about a proxy war between Russia and US fought in the midst of a civil war in Syria. Because it's actually set in a fictional Middle Eastern country called Urzikstan, which is undergoing a civil war where Russia and US are fighting a proxy war and there's a power hungry Russian leader. But you see the leader is a military leader and not a political leader. So it's all 100% fiction and entirely non political obviously.
IW pls
hahaha
Don't put words in my mouth. I am not defending Iraq who is in the wrong for going into Kuwait in the first place and commited tons of atrocities.
What I care about is the aftermath, which resulted in a lot of innocent people dying just because the US had an itchy trigger. The plan was for them to retreat, not surrender which is how it was supposed to go.
It is a war crime. I don't care how it is described in the US or the West (because we both know that the US and Israel and the west in general commits lots of massacres that don't end up being called war crimes).
My argument is about innocent lives getting taken for no reason, not whatever you think it is.
Dude, you literally tried to justify why Iraq didn't surrender and leave their equipment, in your words because "Leave the military equipment in Kuwait? No country would be stupid enough to do that."
You've been jumping around talking about different things trying to call this a war crime when in every single topic you bring up is either a complete misinterpretation of the rules of engagement or trying to excuse the retreat of an Iraqi army that was waging war for half a year and ignored the resolution you keep bringing up as some type of shield that protects.
Yes, your original comment was about civilians. I mentioned that the amount of civilians actually killed is unknown and likely not a high percentage at all of the total killed, most of the vehicles were abandoned before they were destroyed. The original context of civilians dying does not mean something is a war crime in war.
You then tried to call it a war crime because it was a retreating army, ignorant of what a retreating army even is or the fact that a retreating army is not a surrendering army.
You then tried to say because there was a resolution in August of 1990 condemning the invasion and calling for Iraq to retreat, that the retreat in February of 1991 was somehow under the resolution and because of that the actions of the US was a war crime, ignoring that they didn't follow the resolution for half a year and only retreated in the face of an overwhelming force that was responding to their military invasion.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, you keep trying to move the goalposts every step of the way to paint The Highway of Death as a war crime when it's clear the definitions you keep trying to use to define it as a war crime are completely incorrect and ignorant of how war is actually waged.
Last edited:
So they literally call it the highway of death in the game.
An ingame war crime where forces bombed a highway of fleeing vehicles during the invasion of a middle eastern country has the exact same name given to a real-life war crime where forces bombed a highway of fleeing vehicles during the invasion of a middle eastern country. There's no credible way to write that off as coincidence. In what other context has "highway of death" ever appeared? Like ever? You can see through shit like Hearbeat's 41% trans reference, but you can't see any parallels between this and real life events?
An ingame war crime where forces bombed a highway of fleeing vehicles during the invasion of a middle eastern country has the exact same name given to a real-life war crime where forces bombed a highway of fleeing vehicles during the invasion of a middle eastern country. There's no credible way to write that off as coincidence. In what other context has "highway of death" ever appeared? Like ever? You can see through shit like Hearbeat's 41% trans reference, but you can't see any parallels between this and real life events?
It's a work of fiction created by real people in a real country. That real country has committed real war atrocities and uses works of fiction to vilify and blame for their actions other real countries where other real people live.
The only fictional part is the one that allows them to change history, everything else is real. That's called propaganda and you're happy to swallow it.
You know what? I don't care anymore, this thread has been delayed enough so I will make this my last post. Reply if you want but I won't respond.
You seem to be using western description of war crimes when we all know that the west wouldn't admit a war crime if they could. Lots of people criticised the assault on the convoy when it happened and tons of reporters have reported proof that a lot of people (including soldiers and civilians were killed) and which later resulted in the government justifying their actions by calling the dead "a bunch of rapists and murdurers". But no, you had to come defend the US pulling this shit which resulted in lots of death. At the end of the day the Iraqis were retreating back into their country after being forced out by the US demanding they comply with the resolution so why did the US have to attack them and risk even more carnage? That risk only resulted in deaths of lots of civilians. I consider this a war crime, not only me but a huge part of the world do too.
I also find it really suspect how they somehow didn't know that civilians were on that convoy.
No, I'm using your definitions of what constitutes a war crime and pointing out that you're ignorant of very well defined terms that are used in war.
Don't be mad at me when you're writing posts and using terms to justify your views and the basis of your views are literally wrong and incorrect.
I don't really care what you consider a war crime, you said it was a war crime and used examples of actions as proof that it was a war crime. Your examples are based on a false understanding of the terms you used, so I told you why those were wrong.
This is wrong, you can look up the international communities reaction to the Highway of Death, you're making an assumption based on your own views, but it's not actually controversial in the lens of "was it a war crime", because it wasn't and it wasn't even close to being one. It's controversial because of the seemingly disproportional use of force against an enemy that really didn't stand a hope in hell of fighting back. That in itself is not a war crime.
Just like because there is some UN resolution from half a year ago doesn't mean that engaging a retreating force instantly makes it a war crime. Those are literally personal definitions that have no basis in any actual reality.
Fact, retreating armies are hostile forces. It was a turkey shoot, the results are nasty and full display of how war can be waged in such a way that is completely unfair to one side depending on the circumstances. That doesn't make it a war crime, even if you feel it should be.
Next time do a little reading regarding the terms you want to use to defend your position instead of making assumption after assumption.
1. The real life event wasn't a war crime
2. Classifying the invading army retreating (not surrendering, retreating) from the nation they just invaded and tried to annex as simply, a "highway of feeling vehicles" a gross misunderstanding.
OP
OP
Pretty sure OP was talking about natural law, don't be coy.
I would say the comments are more about the obvious war crimes that the Russians do commit and how they are clearly the bad guys, and less about one scene in the game that only mentions an event.
The location looks pretty much exactly like the real location as well.So they literally call it the highway of death in the game.
An ingame war crime where forces bombed a highway of fleeing vehicles during the invasion of a middle eastern country has the exact same name given to a real-life war crime where forces bombed a highway of fleeing vehicles during the invasion of a middle eastern country. There's no credible way to write that off as coincidence. In what other context has "highway of death" ever appeared? Like ever? You can see through shit like Hearbeat's 41% trans reference, but you can't see any parallels between this and real life events?
OP
OP
Just so were clear, whether or not you want to categorize this as a war crime misses the entire point of the US military continuing to be the most evil large scale organization in the world who decided to attack people who were already standing down and retreating. Enough with the semantics.
I'm not being coy. I skimmed back through the comment chain and didn't see anything about natural law. Does the East define a war crime based on natural law? I'm trying to grasp how the Eastern definition of war crime is different.
OP
OP
I'm assuming it meant values and ethics, rather than international law.
Guess I shouldn't be shocked that people are stanning for Iraq... a country who invaded a country and only decided to leave when someone who could actually fight back did so.
There are no semantics, the only "question" about the Highway of Death was the use of force and the aspect that it was a turkey shoot. The Iraqi army did not surrender, they made no attempt to surrender, they were trying to retreat back into Iraq to fight another day.
If you don't want your army to be destroyed, then you surrender. Don't send them down a highway trying to have your cake and eat it hoping the other side who has air superiority just "lets" you walk away from the mess you caused.
OP
OP
Then why is that comment about it being wrong despite of possibly not a war crime by the western definition confusing you?
The war crime part was confusing. The op literally said the rest of the world considers it a war crime. I was curious as to what law the east had that the west doesn't. If it's simply that the east has different values with regards to war, then I'm curious what they are. I'm genuinely curious here. You're acting like I'm coming at this in bad faith.
OP
OP
Ok, I think I know how to clear this up.
They weren't talking about "the east" or whatever laws they may have. They were talking about objective universal laws that are, or should be, basis for all law.
I mean you'd see American comments if the situation had shown them in a bad light.
Thats an interesting take considering I didn't defend Iraq at all.
I really doubt it, there is plenty of popular media that shows the US as clear bad guys or at best morally dubious and there is never any "outrage".
Sicario is one of the most popular movies in the last few years and that's all about the US being directly implicit in continuing and escalating the war on drugs in it's own fictional universe, to where the CIA takes a grief stricken lawyer and turns him into a killing machine who has zero limits.
The criticism with this game and it's story is that it makes no attempt to show the moral grey or outright morally wrong actions that the US and similar forces perpetuate for the sake of "world stability", after promising to show the real consequences of war.
Cool, they referenced a real world event and changed the players to make the US not look as bad.
And... you're missing the point. It's fiction that references a real world event but completely changes the real world event in terms of who and where it happened.
That's not how people define a crime though. Not that it's right because it's not a crime, but I shouldn't be expected to assume that "war crime" is slang for "wrong". Calling out people using a "western" definition as wrong implies that there's another definition. I'm open to the west being wrong. I'm trying to be conciliatory here.
OP
OP
Who do you think controls those laws? They only exist to cover the ass of the western imperialist war machine.
And that's how you create controversy. The next CoD will probably follow the same direction if the rumours about the Cold War setting is true.
Ok, can you actually explain why the real world Highway of Death constitutes a war crime under the rules of international war?