Talk:Highway of Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] POV issues

I realize the temptation is great for some people to insert the anti-American propaganda associated with the "Highway of Death", but this either must be done in a non-POV manner in accordance with the policies of this site, or not at all.

All sources I have deleted were not only POV, they were factually inaccurate. There is no evidence supporting a claim that "tens of thousands" of Iraqi soldiers died thanks to the US destruction of their vehicles. There is similarly no evidence that civilians were killed. If these claims are to be included in the article, they must either be accompanied by an evidentiary basis, or they must be properly described as speculative, unsupported allegations, and the sources must be identified so readers can assess their credibility.

Personally, I think the existing article sums up the best evidence available to date in a non-POV way. For those who might be confused what I mean when I say POV in regard to this article, here are some illustrations:

pro-American / anti-Iraqi POV: "Those Iraqi aggressor scum deserved to die on that road! Their charred vehicles are proof that God was on America's side that day!"

anti-American / pro-Iraqi POV: "The Americans committed a war crime. The American cowards, wearing uniforms, attacked retreating army to feel good about its power.

I deleted several links because the whole point of the linked articles was to accuse US forces of war crimes. Given the evidence at hand, such claims are ridiculous propaganda. They do not further a good faith search for truth. - Kaltes, February 04, 2005

Fair comments. I've yet to read an account that looks properly researched with verifiable sources. The key point to me, however, is that the only people desperate to get from Kuwait to Iraq during the last days of the conflict (or at any point from the invasion of August 1990) were Iraqi soldiers, which makes the claim of widespread civilian loss implausible. They were attacked during hostilities - and that, after all, is what war, regrettably, is about (killing the enemy) - so it wasn't some sort of 'war crime'. In fact the US was criticised afterwards for thinking it had destroyed Saddam's army when it plainly had not, hence the gross miscalculation in thinking that the uprising would succeed, sitting back waiting for it to happen, and thence leaving thousands to die. That was the real crime of the first Gulf War JRJW 20 December 2005
I concur. As one can clearly see in the pictures, they are all (with no exception) Iraqi military vehicles, well, what remained. I don't think such comments about mass fatalities among civilians should be added unless there is an actual source (credible, not Aljazeera). - Eagleamn 12:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There were some civilians in the convoy, many families of a collaborants (many former Palestinian workers in Kuwait, who after the Iraqi invasion had formed a militia to help the occupation - Arafat was the only pro-Saddam Arab national leader in the war), but also Kuwaiti prisoners and hostages. Most of a vehicles were actually various civilian and stolen in Kuwait (including even fire trucks), often loaded with a loot you see scattered in the photos.

I believe Seymour Hersh wrote an excellent article for the New Yorker that mentioned this. It should be added to external sources, and probably should be used as a source as well.

[edit] 80

Various sources identify the road as 'Highway 80'; this link [1] in particular is handy, as it has a rough map of the road (it's the second red arrow from the left). The thing is, did the Iraqis call it Highway 80, the Kuwaitis, the Americans, or who? I assume that, one day, Wikipedia will have articles on every major road in the world, in which case this page will have to be renamed. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why would we rename the page based on that? We usually call battles "the battle of arbitrary_landmark" or "operation totally_irrelevant_word", not "the battle of x longitude and y latitude". OTOH, it is pretty much inevitable that an even more heinous attack will occur on some highway at some point in the future, at which point it may be more desirable to repurpose the name for that... Straker 23:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Besides, there is no consistent naming for other highways in that area, so it wouldn't make much sense to rename it, even if the battle itself never happened and it's just known as that. -- Eagleamn 06:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You sir are a moron, who have not been there, and can not judge what happened watching the photos.

[edit] The Movie Jarhead

I think some mention of the highway's appearance in the movie Jarhead might be warranted, but I'm not certain how to go about doing it appropriately. Are there any other mentions in popular culture or literature? I imagine that scene is taken from the book Jarhead.

Insert a "Fictional Depictions" section at the end of the article, before the references section, then devote a short (1 to 2 sentences) paragraph to each separate depiction. That would seem to be the standard. As for other references, I have no idea. You'd have to sniff around. TaintedMustard 15:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few hundred death?

This is nonsense. You don't destroy almost 2000 vehicles and only kill "a few hundred". Time to call for {{totallydisputed}}. Please get your facts right. Dabljuh 03:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The article reads a fair one at the moment. I don't see the justification of the "totally disputed" since part of it is a direct quote and part is to the WW2 incident. GraemeLeggett 10:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Unless the vehicles have people in them they can be destroyed without people dieing.Prezen 13:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a PBS quote - PUBLIC broadcasting service - Government owned. "No, we didn't do no war crimes". A google lucky search on "Highway of Death" produces this, quite a startling report of the incidence at the Highway of Death. Even more startling however is that the only sort of detailed account of what happened in the article is an US government presentation, that says "No we didn't do no war crimes". I think that would be non-NPOV and also factually disputable. And here, even more details can be found. I don't think the current article has any relationship with what really happened there, or it is heavily slanted in favor of the US POV. More here still. Thus {{totallydisputed}} would be appropriate. Hell, why do you think they called it "Highway of Death" and not "Highway of many totally destroyed vehicles"? There is some significant amount of "POV" (facts) missing in there. Dabljuh 14:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

this <--- that is the most biased, amateurishly written, mindless, cranckpot, anti-american preaching I've ever been witnessed to. Even the North Korean propaganda I've found is less biased and anti-american than that is. It looks like it was written by a twelve year old ffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.53.181 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that "a few hundred" were killed; the U.S. Government does, and the article makes that very clear. If you want to add external references, or expand on the claims of human rights activists and the others, then go ahead. It's a lot more efficient than adding a disputed tag and then complaining on the talk page (no offense). TaintedMustard 15:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
agreed. this seems cut and dry to me. If there are reports saying otherwise (there are) put them in. But the US governments opinion on this is certainly relevent, and may be biased by default. Oreo man 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
PBS isn't government owned.

[edit] Ramsey Clark

The German interwiki article on this subject mentions that former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark also cited the bombings as a war crime. If someone has a source for this, please include it. Thanks. Gilliamjf 09:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a book: "War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq" by Ramsey Clark.
In the table of contents you can read: "The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death" page 90"
http://www.amazon.com/War-Crimes-Against-Activism-Politics/dp/0944624154/sr=8-1/qid=1169647382/ref=sr_1_1/104-5939450-7820756?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0944624154-0
I guess this book should be added as a source.
IMHO the article itself should be added to the category "War Crimes" which alredy exists on Wikipedia (I'm sorry that I don't have the knowledge to do so)
Amethyst1974 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Geneva Convention

What does it say about armed looters trying to escape? That's about the Highway, becuause at Junkyard it was more like a military withdrawal. --HanzoHattori 15:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


It says nothing about either cases. The cited convention dealt with POWs. Prezen 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


GCIII was indeed in 1949, and shouldn't be mistaken for GCIV. Of course the Fourth has nothing to do with this situation. However, GCIII has EVERYTHING to do with this situation, and clearly labels the Highway of Death as a war crime of sickening proportions. White flags of surrender are considered laying down arms, but that doesn't mean much in the face of a cluster bomb used on a civilian vehicle the Iraqi forces were fleeing in.

Geneva Convention III, ARTICLE 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

-A US Veteran who doesn't care to register to address this appalling ignorance. Take this one as a freebie.

[edit] Historic Parallel

The "Historic Parallel" section shouldn't be here at all. First, it does not actually contribute to the understanding of what actually happened on Highway 80. I'm sure there are plenty of instances where retreating troops have been wiped out in grand fashion; those get their own articles, and if we want to make a list of them, sure, but not on this page. Also, this paragraph states that the attack on Highway 88 "mirrored" the attacks on the Falaise pocket; this claim is problematic because (a) it is unsourced, and (b) the article later states that the troops in the Falaise pocket attempted to surrender, and nowhere (in this article at least) is it established that the troops on Highway 88 made any attempt to surrender.Nosferatublue 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synth

I tagged the Geneva Conventions for synth. It's possible that this is the case, but we need a reliable source who has made this allegation. Dchall1 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I was there

Army Medic- A grunts best friend says: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.209 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the very few to go down the valley of death a day or so after it happened and there were hardly any bobies, I guess we saw about 3 dozen mainly incinerated corpses. Not pleasant, but I did not personally see the thousands of dead that others accuse. Consider this - the valley of death was flanked on the West by a huge minefield which had tank mines and helicopter poles in (to prevent an offensive - lets guess who put them there? You are right - the Iraqi's. The east (shore side) was a rock / sandstone cliff (you could not bury anything there). The north and south of the road were similar - so where did all the bodies go? There were some corpses that had come up through the sand (this does happen in sand as it moves in the wind), but no more than a dozen or so. Most vehicles were burned out and only one coach we saw had any corpses in it. Tanks (a few) did have dead in. As did a large ambulance. I think (and this is a considered think - 16 years in the making) that the majority walked, but some of the drivers would have probably stayed behind and been killed. This was not a war crime but it was one of the last offensives of the war from an army that was fleeing - the brutality we witnessed when we visited sites was horrific - war is a brutal business; the Iraqi Armed Forces were not pink and fluffy - they treated civilians and soldiers very badly - we saw the evidence. I was an Army medic by the way (British)and walking and driving down the valley of death will live with me and my colleagues for the rest of our lives. Arm chair Generals rarely make good soldiers! Not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DESMO THRUST

212.183.134.209 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Desmo Thrust

[edit] Environmental Situation?

It would be nice if any information can be found on what environmental impact the destroyed vehicles, equipment, and supplies may have, especially after sitting there for 18 years. What steps has the Kuwait Government taken to clean up the remains? Dpaanlka (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note re: Casualty Figures

I seriously suggest the claims of civilian casualties be taken with a grain of salt, for several reasons:

1) a modest portion of the vehicles destroyed in the strikes were Kuwaiti civilian autos, stolen by Iraqi soldiers or Palestinian-Kuwaiti 3rd-columnists. Typically they were packed with looted goods (furniture, gold, etc) from Kuwaiti residences and businesses and then driven back into Iraq to be fenced on the black market. Some of them made it, some of them didn't. Regardless, anyone driving a looted Kuwaiti automobile into a war zone was NOT able to claim protection as a civilian non-combatant (CNC) under the Geneva convention.

2) I have not personally laid eyes on any investigation which gives concrete examples of GENEVA-CONVENTION RECOGNIZED civilian noncombatants being killed by airstrikes in this area. Many people seem to be confusing the concepts of "civilian who does not wear a uniform, but has been in active support of the Iraqi army's military operation, has been armed and protected by the Iraqi army, and is returning to Iraq with looted civilian goods" and "civilian non-combatant per the Geneva Convention". The two are not the same. One is considered a partisan (i.e- an illegal combatant, like at Gitmo) and is subject to being summarily shot wherever they are found. Look it up.

2a) Since there's nearly no intact (or extant) bodies to examine for evidence, one could conceivably, therefore, call every charred corpse in a civilian clothes in a civilian vehicle a "civilian non-combatant killed by the US". This would, of course, be grossly inaccurate.

3) Ockham's Razor. Why were they there at all? If I was a civilian fleeing to Iraq, it'd be because I knew the Kuwaitis were about to get their country back and as soon as they did, my head was going to be on the block for collaboration. If I was going, I'd take a bunch of nice shit with me. Why not? And I can tell you for damn sure that if I heard a plane, I'd run like HELL. Alternately, we have buses full of nuns and pregnant women getting nuked off the highway with Maverick missiles while George Bush rubs his palms with glee. Uh huh. Enough bullshit, please. People will say all kinds of bullshit when their hands are caught in the cookie jar. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 08:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)