Talk:Battle of Khafji
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Saudi & Qatari whos fighted on the ground & freed the US Marin's troops & al-khafji city supported by American air strikes & Marin's artillery , Read Washingtonpost Friday, February 1, 1991
I was shocked about what the american guys wrote in this article they changed the history & did'nt mention to Qatar & Saudi troops from the article how they freed the khafji city US marin's troops User:Qatarson
The first few paragraphs have some very POV words, e.g. "juggernaut", "gross confusion" or "valiantly". References to "Lawrence of Arabia" are just as unfortunate. Those sort of formulas should be removed in my view. If no one comes forth in a while, I'll do it myself. --Ebralph 12:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the reason to remove the 1991 category - it is after all. But I don't see the reason in removing the other categories. --Ebralph 12:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Isn't there any more about the importance of this article, as well as the fact that the main Iraqi forces didn't get into the fight, but were pinned down north of the border by air strikes? This battle was badly understood by US Central Command at the time. The page should reflect this better. Darkmind1970 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cover up?
Is there any evidence of that at all, and if so, is it any good? This sounds biased to be. Also, why focus of 11 Marines who got killed by blue on blue, when the Iraqi army lost over a thousand killed or captured? Does the press really expect friendly fire incidents to be completely preventable? It used to be much worse. Hundreds were killed in WWII in Normandy due to errant carpet bombing runs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.125.49.252 (talk • contribs) March 9, 2006.
- I question a cover up on this as well. Navy History February, 1991 says February 3, 1991 "DOD announces that evidence concludes that a U.S. aircraft accidently hit a Light Armored Vehicle killing 7 Marines during the January 29 battle at Khafji." (PD-USGov-Military-Navy). It notes the other 4 deaths, but due to confusion noted in this article, it seems like they didn't realize it was fratricide at that time. Doesn't seem to be much of a cover up to me. I've requested a citation for the cover up remark and will remove the sentence if none appears. --Dual Freq 23:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iraqi casualties
I dont think that the iraqi army have 2000 casualties in this battle its impossible because just 1 battailon entred in khafji and an iraqi battailon have 400 men. They cant kill 2000 person in just 3 days of battle.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs) September 9, 2006 (UTC)
- James Titus's paper The Battle of Khafji: An Overview and Preliminary Analysis disagrees with you. It states 2,000 dead and 300 vehicles destroyed out of 2 Iraqi divisions (~20,000 men). Air power is a force multiplier, "they" should have known better than to attack without air superiority. In the Dieppe Raid almost 1,000 Canadians were killed out of only 6,000 total allied troops involved in the invasion. 10% Iraqi dead in 3 days of the Battle of Khafji is a lower percentage than whats listed in that article. I suppose you don't believe "they" (the Germans) could kill that many there either. Dual Freq 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but an iraqi divison during the gulf war have 8000 men because the rest is placed in reserve. During this battle, the coalition have never destroyed 2 iraqi division because during the ground offensive they fight the second armorded divsion in the kuwait international airport and in the al-jaber air base. Sorry, but you cant trust in a one opinion of a just one analyst. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs) September 10, 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you got me there, 2,000 dead out of 16,000, not 20,000. My mistake. I'm still waiting for an alternative source, at least the current list of 2,000 has a source. Even if it was only 1 division that's still 2,000 out of 8,000. Considering the air superiority factor the attack would almost have been suicide. Attacking without artillery or air support against a defending force that has both, will result in heavy losses. You may not believe it, but that doesn't make it not true. Dual Freq 18:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Only 3 iraqi brigade were engage in the battle to a total of 6000 men (2000 men in a brigade). The top Saudi commander, Gen. Khalid Bin Sultan, as saying the Iraqis suffered 200 dead and the pda say that iraqi suffered 200 dead. As well, many other analyst is agree with this and your casualties are just an estimate. For me, i think 200 casualties are high but its the real number.
Source :
http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8ap2.html#3.%20Iraqi%20military%20personnel%20killed%20during%20the
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post013191_2.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comeau (talk • contribs) September 10, 2006 (UTC)
- They are not "My" casualty numbers. I did not put them in the article, I'm simply trying to find out why an anonymous user wants to delete the current numbers without reference, and originally without comment. The WA Post article you cite is from the day after the battle. I'm not sure how accurate it will be considering one of the major gripes in this article is lack of media coverage in the immediate aftermath of the battle. Titus's paper looks very well researched and has many citations. I would trust it more than a press article from January 31, 1991, during the battle. Replace the number with an alternate, properly cited, casualty figure. An anon user simply deleting a number with no comment looks more like vandalism than editing. Dual Freq 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but i placed the second web to to support my opinion, so i have the reference why you dont change the casualties? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs) September 10, 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sufficiently convinced by Titus's paper and have no interest in researching it further. I have no intention of changing it, but I wouldn't object to someone putting an alternative, that is referenced. Possibly something like, various reports on casualties, ranging from 200 to over 2000. (with a citation referring to the low and the high numbers.) Also, I suppose it depends on what is counted as the battle of Khafji, the 2,000 number is accounting for forces enroute to the site in Kuwait, and forces in Khafji proper. Maybe your 200 number is only in the Khafji vicinity. Dual Freq 23:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You do what do you wont and you dont accept the other opinion, i think that you forget that wikipedia is neutral and not pro american.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs) September 10, 2006 (UTC)
- I've spent some time in Canada, not Montreal, but I've been to Calgary. Friendly people up there, I'd love to go back. I don't know what else you're looking for, I suppose you think the Battle of Khafji never even happened. American propaganda I suppose. I never said no change period. I told you I just wanted to prevent an anon user from simply deleting a number with no comment. It looked more like vandalism than editing. I also said I was open to a compromise as shown above. Who is neutral here and who just wants to delete a number they don't like? I don't know what kind of answer you are looking for. What more do you want? Dual Freq 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont no why you talking about Canada, and some people in Calgary are racist against french. The battle of Ras Al-Khafji have realy exist. I just say that, 2000 is to high if you wont you can wirte 200-2000 casualties this is neutral. If its neutral you can accept the other opinion and i dont find an other analyst who have wrote 2000 casualties so you based your opinion in just 1 analyst and 1 its not enough.
- I found Calgary to be very culturally diverse, many people of different races, lots of people of Asian heritage there as well, very diverse. Everything was bilingual, English and French on every sign. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario was pretty nice too. The Canadian side of the Niagara falls was nice too. Maybe someday I'll get to Montreal, but no plans right now. I've been to France though, friendly people there too. I don't speak French, but the folks in Nice, Villefranche-sur-Mer and Saint-Tropez didn't seem to mind. Lots of fun. Been to Dubai, too. I was surprised that everyone spoke English there. Very nice city, friendly people, low crime, very inexpensive gold products, I wish I could go back there, too. Dual Freq 02:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I was aware the Iraqis committed three divisions into the battle. I imagine that the casualty count must include the horrific losses that the Iraqis took when they were hit by coalition airpower as well. Darkmind1970 13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Republican Guard
The republican guard was never deployed in this battle its just an element of the 3 corps and its not the real number of casualties for Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.226.40 (talk • contribs) 05:54, January 7, 2007 (UTC)
- but it was used as the offical army force , isn't it ? Ammar 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
