Believe it or not (and yes, I do site the source). If it's true, wow. If it's false, at least there is still some entertainment value.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=106694

SADDAM'S SOLDIERS SURRENDER


Mar 9 2003




Mike Hamilton reports from Camp Coyote in Kuwait


TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.

The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.

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.

The truth comes out. Iraqi soldiers are really Frenchmen.

The truth comes out. Iraqi soldiers are really Frenchmen.

LOL!!!
You beat me to it!!!

I saw this, but I'm kind of doubting the veracity of the story. After all, there was a Republican Guard member who surrendered to the Kurds last week. Maybe there's a difference between surrendering to your own countrymen and surrendering to the British. I'm just not sure what would stop the British soldiers from accepting them as refugees or what not.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I saw this, but I'm kind of doubting the veracity of the story. After all, there was a Republican Guard member who surrendered to the Kurds last week. Maybe there's a difference between surrendering to your own countrymen and surrendering to the British. I'm just not sure what would stop the British soldiers from accepting them as refugees or what not.

I would think that taking captors when there is no war would be an act of war. I think if they probably would have to either let them go or keep them and be accused of starting the "aggresion" early.

I've heard that Sadaam is putting alot of his personal henchmen in every group of soldiers. This is to prevent what happened in the Gulf War, when some Iraqi soldiers would surrender without a fight. The thinking behind it is that soldiers will be afraid to surrender if Sadaam's Generals are watching, in fear of being shot on the spot.

Originally posted by Joe Canadian
I've heard that Sadaam is putting alot of his personal henchmen in every group of soldiers. This is to prevent what happened in the Gulf War, when some Iraqi soldiers would surrender without a fight. The thinking behind it is that soldiers will be afraid to surrender if Sadaam's Generals are watching, in fear of being shot on the spot.

The Soviet Union used this strategy during WWII to great effectiveness. In many cases, the soldiers were just as, if not more, afraid of the NKVD than the Germans.

Originally posted by couriers
The truth comes out. Iraqi soldiers are really Frenchmen.
Now you know why France is so much against a possible war. :D

Tarkus

Originally posted by astralhaze
The Soviet Union used this strategy during WWII to great effectiveness. In many cases, the soldiers were just as, if not more, afraid of the NKVD than the Germans.

The movie 'Enemy at the Gates' illustrated this to great effect.

Originally posted by ice4277
The movie 'Enemy at the Gates' illustrated this to great effect.
That and sending in half the troops with no weapons so that you had to pray for the guy next to you to get killed so you could pick up a rifle or gun.

Tarkus

Not only were you shot if you tried to surrender, they would shoot you if you tried to retreat. Also, if you said something like "this war thing really sucks man" you could be shot for "defeatism".

Well this artice does come from a duious source, they are like the Equirer of the US, just look at the front page :D

Not that I can't believe it. we know that his general troops are undersupplied

I would say the difference between Saddam putting his henchmen in with regular soldiers and Stalin doing the same thing is that we KNOW Iraq's going to lose this war.

I can see a lot of his rank and file soldiers blowing away their minders, then surrendering to the US.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I would say the difference between Saddam putting his henchmen in with regular soldiers and Stalin doing the same thing is that we KNOW Iraq's going to lose this war.

I can see a lot of his rank and file soldiers blowing away their minders, then surrendering to the US.

I think you have a point, but a lot of the Russians thought they were going to lose the war too. In fact, that is precisely why they started shooting retreating and surrendering soldiers. They had to impress upon the soldiers that they had no choice but to fight, otherwise they would have given up. The difference is that the rank and file Red Army soldier may have had no love lost for Stalin, but they did realize the importance of winning the war. If they lost, they knew full well what German occupation meant. For all my criticism of the coming war, I do realize that Iraq under U.S. occupation would be far preferable to Iraq under Saddam. I am sure that Iraqi's soldiers realize this even more precisely than I.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I would say the difference between Saddam putting his henchmen in with regular soldiers and Stalin doing the same thing is that we KNOW Iraq's going to lose this war.

I can see a lot of his rank and file soldiers blowing away their minders, then surrendering to the US.

Yeah, I agree with that. If I was an Iraqi soldier, I would be very reluctant to fight a war I knew we could not win. I’d ask myself if I really wanted to die in the name of Saddam. How could things possibly be any worse than they already are under the rule of a murderous tyrant? The psychological war is already under way and I think we’ll see a lot of defections - hope so anyway.

Wow, I'm so glad that the US isn't the only country with bizarre newspapers. But the UK seems to make there like alternate reality newpapers or something. They are almost halfway serious when the right this stuff!

Here's another one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605557,00.html

Blix 'hid smoking gun' from Britain and US

The discovery of the drone, which has a wingspan of 7.45 metres, will make it much easier for waverers on the Security Council to accept US and British arguments that Iraq has failed to meet UN demands that it disarm.

“It’s incredible,” a senior diplomat from a swing voter on the council said. “This report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It’s a biggie.”

An explicit report by Dr Blix of the discovery of an Iraqi violation would help the six swing voters — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan — to explain a change of position to their publics.

Unlike the outlawed Al-Samoud 2 missile, which was declared as a purportedly legal weapon, the drone was not declared. It would be the first undeclared weapons programme found by the UN and is considered by British and US officials to be a “smoking gun”.

I don't think the Times is a tabloid, but I could be wrong. If you look at their main page, it displays a decided lack of sensationalism.

FWIW, the Blix story is valid. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

FWIW, CNN has a similar story.