|
Grex > Agora46 > #105: Uday and Qusay dead; victims of a family dispute over money? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 122 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 86 of 122:
| 
Jul 29 00:15 UTC 2003 |
Nowhere have I stated that "all of the US troops involved in the Hussein
brothers incident [are] idiots", so don't make further false statements.
|
jep
|
|
response 87 of 122:
|
Jul 29 01:19 UTC 2003 |
Nowhere did I state that you stated that.
|
scott
|
|
response 88 of 122:
|
Jul 29 01:29 UTC 2003 |
From #85 (jep):
"re resp:83: Rane, you were calling all of the US troops involved in the
Hussein brothers incident idiots"
How quickly we forget our own words...
Anyway, the troops are not idiots, just green. In WWII the first few
months of US involvement were a confused mess. Combat is not something easy
to learn or even something you can really teach properly. New technologies,
battle conditions, environments will require some adaption time.
|
tod
|
|
response 89 of 122:
|
Jul 29 18:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 90 of 122:
|
Jul 29 20:14 UTC 2003 |
I doubt that a TOW missle was a necessity: they weren't shooting at a tank.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 122:
|
Jul 29 20:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 92 of 122:
|
Jul 29 21:01 UTC 2003 |
re resp:88: I phrased what I said most carefully, and kept in mind the
entire previous discussion when I did so.
The argument that it would have been better to capture Saddam Hussein's
two sons (which everyone agrees on) but the military didn't do so and
didn't have a good reason for doing so is all based on the military
and/or government being idiots. That's what I was arguing against
yesterday.
Rane didn't specifically state the quote he gave in resp:86. However,
his argument (and that of others) about the foolishness of the raid
which killed the Hussein boys is based on the idea that all of the
military personnel involved in the raid were stupid. While every
single person in the United States can instantly see the obvious fact
that it would have been better to capture them, but no one in the
military, on the spot, after weeks and months of briefings and
training, realized that same thing.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 122:
|
Jul 29 22:31 UTC 2003 |
You are leaping to a false conclusion, not based on anything I or anyone
else said.
Nor did I say that the raid was "foolish". The raid was appropreate - for
the purpose of capturing the brothers alive.
Yes, the military erred. The government erred in starting an unprovoked
war, so it is not too surprising that some elements of the military would
subsequently err in executing it.
You are arguing that because a mistake was made, it could not have been
a mistake. Good luck....
|
scott
|
|
response 94 of 122:
|
Jul 30 00:47 UTC 2003 |
I don't see a difference between "said" and "stated" But then I've never
gotten Leeron to accept that position either.
|
jep
|
|
response 95 of 122:
|
Jul 30 02:25 UTC 2003 |
You're being deliberately and determinedly obtuse, Scott. I'm done
explaining it to you.
re resp:93: Rane, I am stating that you are not considering all of the
facts available to you. You have come to an incorrect conclusion.
The results of that raid were not the best imaginable results, but
that does not mean there was a mistake. Your criteria are in error.
The military decided the best course of action was to respond
forcefully in that situation, and to kill the inhabitants of the
house. It was not a bad choice, even though we can all imagine
potentially better results from that raid. Possible worse results
have been mentioned as well.
The advisability of the war, and the information used to come to the
decision to go to war, did not determine the advisability or
information available for every one of the specific decisions made by
commanders in the Army. For example, should hot dogs or hamburgers be
served for dinner? Should a machine gun or hand grenade be used at
time X? I don't think you can show a connection between the
beginnings of the war, and whether it was a better idea to use a TOW
rather than a seige to end the raid which killed the sons of Saddam
Hussein. If you can, please demonstrate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 96 of 122:
|
Jul 30 05:29 UTC 2003 |
I can only say that I see a pattern in the war and aftermaths: unprovoked
invasion; "shock and awe"; force overuse in apprehensions.
|
i
|
|
response 97 of 122:
|
Jul 31 00:46 UTC 2003 |
Dear grexers with ground combat training/experience:
Is there some plausable way to capture heavily armed hostile soldiers
who are actively defending a well-fortified building? (My understanding
is that the missles were used because smaller stuff was just bouncing
off the heavy reinforced concrete "armor" of the structure - anyone know
more about this?) Might armored engineering equipment suitable for such
a task have been available, and (if so), how long might it have taken to
get deployed & engaged? If a well "dug in" hostile seriously does not
want to be taken alive (a pretty reasonable viewpoint for Saddam's sons),
what are the best ways to do it anyway (and how good are they)? If an
otherwise-unremarkable building turns out to be well-fortified and well-
defended, and supposedly contains high-level enemy leaders, how likely
should (an) excape tunnel(s) be considered? How fast can such a tunnel
be dug in a siege situation?
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 122:
|
Jul 31 00:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 99 of 122:
|
Jul 31 01:40 UTC 2003 |
There are tunnels under the borders of the Gaza strip which are used by
terrorists. Seems to us that there is plenty of sand thereabouts.
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 122:
|
Jul 31 02:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 101 of 122:
|
Jul 31 03:20 UTC 2003 |
Oh, nuts. You can tunnel under sand. You just need something to hold
it up and stabilize it, such as sandbags or large amounts of concrete.
re resp:97: I don't have any training in this area, and so your
opinion is as good as mine. I was trained as a combat engineer, which
is an infantryman with a shovel.
There are means of getting armed people out of a building, including
1) siege, 2) a subtle attack such as sneaking in an unknown entrance
or using a secret agent, 3) chemical weapons such as tear gas
1) A siege is a good choice if you control all of the surrounding
area. Hostage situations and beseiged insane gunmen situations are
usually resolved in favor of the law because the law controls the
surrounding area. If the US military fully controlled the area around
the house in which the Husseins were holding out, they probably could
have just waited them out. Downsides: The house could have then
become a rally point for disgruntled Iraqis or even a target of
Baathist military strikes; the Iraqis inside the house could have
known of, or found, some way to escape.
2) The subtle approach requires that nothing unexpectedly goes wrong.
It also requires a secret usable for a surprise for the beseiged
people. Apparently we didn't have any secret double agents with the
Husseins.
3) Chemical weapons are notoriously unreliable. They blow away, they
dissipate because of heat, they blow over "us" instead of "them",
they're defensible against if you have a gas mask and MOPP suit. And
of course, they're illegal to use in a war.
|
novomit
|
|
response 102 of 122:
|
Jul 31 11:39 UTC 2003 |
In war, everything is legal. Regardless of what the laws say. When someone
is trying to kill you or you want something that your enemies have, laws are
of no relevance.
|
scott
|
|
response 103 of 122:
|
Jul 31 11:59 UTC 2003 |
Gas was used in that Moscow theatre standoff with the Chechen rebels only a
year or two ago, and it ended up killing a significant number of peopl.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 104 of 122:
|
Jul 31 13:07 UTC 2003 |
They used a surgical anesthetic, which wasn't safe in that situation.
|
tod
|
|
response 105 of 122:
|
Jul 31 16:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 106 of 122:
|
Jul 31 16:25 UTC 2003 |
I admit they didn't have a lot of options, since the Chechens had the theater
wired with explosives and would have been hard to talk down. It's hard to
second-guess them from here, but I do wonder whether the situation was urgent
enough that they had to go in right then, and whether they could have found
a gas that would have done the job with less health risks.
|
tod
|
|
response 107 of 122:
|
Jul 31 16:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 108 of 122:
|
Jul 31 17:25 UTC 2003 |
the same arguements were used at Waco, could they not have waited? There
comes a point where the depletion of resources may merit the use of a specific
weapon in an attempt to end it the threat. Sich decision are always more
clear in hind-sight.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 109 of 122:
|
Jul 31 17:25 UTC 2003 |
duud
|
rcurl
|
|
response 110 of 122:
|
Jul 31 18:41 UTC 2003 |
Re #102: haven't you heard of the Geneva Convention?
It is said "all is fair in love and war" but, of course, that is nonsense.
Do you have no problem with torturing captive soldiers to obtain information,
or even just revenge?
Re #108: they are pretty clear at the time, too. We spend huge amounts
of both time and money in trying, convicting and punishing criminals: much
more than *any* waiting to outlast the Waco crowd, or the Hussein
brothers, would consume. It is a "false economy" to rush to judgement -
unless of course the only purpose is to avoid going through the "trouble"
of our system of justice.
|