Skip

There is a time
March 9, 2003 8:51 AM   Subscribe

Surrender so soon. "The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender."
posted by The Jesse Helms (16 comments total)

 
Judges 20:13, " Now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Belial, which are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. "
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:53 AM on March 9, 2003


I was in the process of posting that. This story says it all for me. They really struggled to get across the border.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:53 AM on March 9, 2003


more from the mirror

it's a tabloid, people. nothing to see here. besides, the border has UN peacekeepers, presumably other border guards, and a fence, so I'm taking this with a van-load of salt.
posted by kickingtheground at 9:02 AM on March 9, 2003


It's a tabloid, but comparing it to the Sun, it's a broadsheet these days. That Bush story came from the BBC.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2003


I think all the Iraqis should just rush the US embassy at once, and demand refugee status. The whole friggin' civilian population. It's not THAT big a building sure.......but think of how many people you can pack into a phone booth or a VW beetle!
posted by troutfishing at 9:35 AM on March 9, 2003


kickingtheground says this report is false because it came from a tabloid. Let's take a closer look at the article:

Mike Hamilton reports from Camp Coyote in Kuwait

Are you saying there is no reporter named Mike Hamilton? Or that he made the story up? The notion of a few soldiers trying to get out of Iraq is certainly believeable given all the other reports of Iraqi refugees fleeing the country and pleading and begging for the USA to liberate it.
posted by stbalbach at 9:49 AM on March 9, 2003


i'm just saying that tabloids are often not trustworthy. this story might very well be true.

[of course, what tabloids are in america and what they are in the UK are very different, so I might be over-reacting to that].
posted by kickingtheground at 9:52 AM on March 9, 2003


Tabloids in the UK run the gamut, from the respectable Evening Standard to the despicable (well, journalistically at least) News of the World and Sunday Sport. Most are more toward the latter end of the continuum. The Sun is pretty popular, very right-wing (It's a Murdoch paper) and is usually looked on as working-class. With the exception of the Standard, I don't read the tabloids very much when I'm there, so I don't recall exactly where the Mail, Mirror, or Express fall.
posted by Vidiot at 10:24 AM on March 9, 2003


The Mirror is a relatively left-wing, pro-union and usually Labour-supporting paper but has come out strongly against the war. The Mail and Express are both hateful, rabid right-wing rags.

I find no reason to disbelieve this story.
posted by cbrody at 11:06 AM on March 9, 2003


If we are there to liberate the people of Iraq © why the hell send them back? Give them three hots, a cot and a pair of socks and some cable tv dammit!
posted by Mack Twain at 11:23 AM on March 9, 2003


Jeez, wouldn't you surrender if you were them?

The Iraqi battle plan seems to be fan the regular army conscripts out wide to slow the allies down, then use the RG and SRG to counterattack and plug holes in the line (standard Iraqi doctrine). I would also expect that the plan includes lobbing nerve gas shells at the Americans (and the Iraqi conscripts) in hopes of slowing the Americans. Saddam's plan is probably to forcing a long bloody war that he could graciously offer to end by making some meaningless concessions while he holds onto power. Plus, nerve gassing his least reliable troops reduces the chance of revolt.

The MOD is probably keeping mum because
1) sending those guys back looks bad
2) Who is to say that these paratroopers were actually outside Iraqi territory?
posted by ednopantz at 11:46 AM on March 9, 2003


If we are there to liberate the people of Iraq why the hell send them back?

Well, think about it. They thought there was a war on. When they found out there wasn't, they had to make a choice. Claim political exile and face the consequences of desertion ie. family members back home tourtured and killed.. or wait a few more days eating mud to surrender when the war starts then kick back to the high life with MREs.
posted by stbalbach at 2:32 PM on March 9, 2003


the Iraqi methodology:
Bush: "Iraqis? A trifle. It was simply a matter of outsmarting them."
Fry: "Wow, I never would've thought of that."
Bush: "You see, Iraqis have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down."
ala Futurama
posted by blue_beetle at 4:20 PM on March 9, 2003


Maybe they were French-trained?
posted by dg at 7:12 PM on March 9, 2003


The Daily Mail led the call for war in August 1914. If you'd like to write a letter thanking them for the 20th Century their contact details are here.
posted by vbfg at 5:08 AM on March 10, 2003


Not that I have it for The Daily Mail you understand... Oh no, not me.
posted by vbfg at 5:08 AM on March 10, 2003


« Older AMIBiosOrNot   |   Historical? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post