NPR has been reporting this afternoon that Uday and Qusay Hussein, the eldest sons of Saddam Hussein, are confirmed dead after a 3-hour firefight in the Iraqi city of Mosul. The house in which they were killed is said to be owned by a tribal leader who is also a cousin of Saddam; the owner was reported to have been seen talking with US soldiers after the battle, leading to suspicion that he turned in the two for the $15 million/head reward.122 responses total.
This response has been erased.
Let that be a lesson to Muslim clerics who think capitalism is Anti-Islamic. Hopefully this'll shut up all those ingrates who think they can have democracy and home rule in a day; don't they realise if it was that easy they'd have brought it in as soon as they gained independence from the UK?
What the FUCK are we doing giving away $30 million dollars to some schmuck backstabber just for letting us kill his cousins for him?
Don't worry, there's plenty of money in the budget thanks to Bush's excellent fiscal policies. </SARCASM>
This response has been erased.
nad it was a 6 hout firefight...
200 against 4
re resp:3: Given that we're not packing up and leaving Iraq to be re- taken over by Baathists led by Saddam and/or his family... you'd have rather used another method of digging out these people, such as maybe occupation for another 10 years? While I have a lot more misgivings over the invasion of Iraq than I did at the start of the war, I'd still say that 1) The Hussein sons were part of the problem we invaded Iraq to solve; 2) While they lived, they were very likely to be a continuing problem; 3) It was a whole lot cheaper to get someone to sell them out than to find and arrest and/or kill them 4) Even so, I bet $15 or $30 million in reward money was a drop in the bucket of the money we spent in trying to find these people. We're spending a few billion per month or thereabouts in fighting in Iraq, as well as more American soldiers' lives every day. This was not a big expense. It was probably money pretty well spent.
Yes, but in the bazaar westerners frequently overpay and walk away thinking they got the deal of the century. I suspect that a $3 million reward would have been just as effective. (What's that in worthless Iraqi currency?)
Irrelevant. The rewards had to sound big to Americans, because they need to convince Americans that Bush is tough on Sadam.
re#8: Damn well spent. Plus US full faith and credit redemption bonds (US dollar) are going to circulate and incentivize the exchange of goods and services which helps motivate the iraqi people as well. What good was money if you don't know if you are going to be around to spend it, and why buy things if the government figures might just take it from you on a whim. Now under the current regime things are a lot different thanks be to allah. (Kalifornia could learn from this) re#9: Ah, youd. It is indeed odd the barbarian habit of telegraphing interest and price. Perhaps they should do the same and offer a gift in return for a gift of WMD? re#10: I would think that when the Americans spend dozens of billions of dollars a few millions would be seen as the price of a couple of helicopters or tanks. The perceived value to the Iraqis - who gripe about paying 50 cents for a gallon of gas - the bounty would seem incalculably large.
Actually, any Iraqi who collects the bounty on Saddam or his sons is very likely to become the biggest assassination target in Iraq. I expect the first dollar spent will be on a plane ticket to Switzerland. So don't bet on a lot of this money circulating in Iraq.
re 9 and 10: Very likely the same results could have been gotten for $3 million. That would have been a better deal, as it would have saved enough for us to occupy Iraq for another half hour or so. But yeah, there was a publicity benefit for Bush in America. Of course. Iraqis aren't going to vote for president in the next election.
I actually agree with twenex on this issue. Fuck all the rest of you Bush bashing crybabies. None of you have a clue about politics...you just think it's "cool" to be a liberal dipshit. I think all liberals should be exiled..to France. You can all buttfuck each other there.(Oh yea I forgot...you scumbags have changed our law on that also) Actually I think it would be better if you would all get AIDS and die. So buttfuck away liberal scum
I agree with jep. One of the issues working against us right now is that Iraqis are afraid to side with the U.S., for fear Saddam will come back into power. This is a step towards eliminating thta fear. Re #14: Fess up. You're really Ann Coulter, aren't you? ;>
Ann Coulter. ROTFLMAO!!!
I don't support the new American policy of political assassination. Once upon a time we supported the trial of war and other criminals. There are good grounds for capturing the Iraqi leaders alive and trying them. Somehow this has lost standing and assassination has become the preferred solution to the problem of criminality. I understand the arguments for assassination - swift and final and decapitates an opposition. Nations throughout history have practiced it. Even on their own citizens. Saddam did it. Now we are doing it.
Responses 2, 3, 10 and 12 are more or less straight Bush-bashing. No matter what happens, no matter what he does, Bush is wrong, and is going to get criticized for it. The arguments given were not reasonable, they are exclusively partisan. It's surprising to see who is acting that way, but even the most thoughtful, reasonable and best- spoken amongst us are devoted to our opinions. I certainly am. There's no reason that better people than me can't be as well. But in this item, their comments so far pretty much have to be discounted, as they don't have a shred of fairness to them. We have invaded Iraq and successfully driven out Saddam Hussein's government. Anything done from this point on has to accept that that has happened, and nothing can undo it. If you don't start there, you're not in the real world and your comments are fully irrelevant. Since we're in Iraq, we're not going to abandon the results of our efforts to this point. We're not going to abruptly pull out of Iraq. We are going to put in some more effort (and American soldiers, and lots and lots of money) and make things work as well as we can, according to the plan we've been using so far and any modifications to it that are made. And the president is going to declare this all to be a success. His political opponents are going to declare it to be a miserable failure. Neither of those facts is based on any other facts at all. They're completely independent of anything that happens in Iraq. In that context -- the real world -- spending $30 million to target Saddam's main goons (and heirs) makes sense.
This response has been erased.
I thought criminals of war were supposed to be tried by tribunals instead of this cowboy-style assassinations. 200 plus helicopter gunships versus four. Heh, some trial.
Re #18: do you apply that argument to crimes like murder? "Anything done from this point on has to accept that that has happened, and nothing can undo it." So, what should be done about it? Just move on and forget about the past? You recommend that for murderers too? All of our treatment of criminal events are after the fact. But it is still necessary to assign culpability and apply suitable punishment in order to help maintain some level of civil responsibility.
I can see where you might consider resp:10 to be "Bush Bashing" but resp:12 isn't even about him. It's entirely possible that my opinions of Bush's policies are colored by the fact that he disgusts me so much. I think he's the worst president that we've had in my life, easily displacing Nixon for the title. I have so little respect for his integrity, for his ability to give a damn about anybody but himself, that it is difficult for me to believe there are honest motives behind anything he does.
This response has been erased.
re resp:22: resp:12 continued the tone established in resp:10, and it gave this message: "No matter what, it's bad and it's Bush's fault". Resp:11 facetiously cites a slight economic benefit to Iraq for the reward money and you even have to vigorously dispute *that*? It was certainly clear you hated Bush. Your resp:12 was about Bush. re resp:21: Aren't you the guy who defends the right to abortion as being moral because the law says it's legal? Why are you now talking about crime? No crime was committed. The Hussein boys were dealt with in the way anyone is dealt with who is resisting arrest with guns. I'm sure we'd have rather had them in custody than blasted apart by bombs. I don't agree with the military tribunals, either. I'm not in favor of a policy of assassination, but then, I don't think we (generally) have one.
A six hour firefight is an "assassination"? Now does Mr. rcurl understand why I wish to have him define the terms he tosses about????
You seem to be the one with difficulty with simple, clear, English. From http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/ "In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." "Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination. "In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect. That is, until some subsequent presidents just ignored the policy, most recently, and mostly clearly, by Bush.
This response has been erased.
Wait a minute, Rane. I don't necessarily agree that yesterday's attack was an assassination. Would you care to support your assertion? I generally think of assassinations as being highly covert, attacks very specifically directed individually at a single person with no intention to harm anyone else, carried out by a single person, and using weapons such as a handgun or knife, or poison. It is very much a legitimate military operation -- and not an assassination -- to attack a military installation for an opponent. It's legitimate to attack a military leader with weapons of war in order to disrupt the opponent's ability to make war. It wasn't an assassination attempt when Clinton sent cruise missiles into Yemen against Osama bin Laden's base, or when Reagan sent cruise missiles against Moammar Khaddafy in Libya -- were they? I never heard anyone call either of those attacks an "assassination attempt". It is a legitimate police action to respond with force to someone who is resisting arrest. For example, the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas was not an assassination attempt, it was an effort -- which went badly wrong -- to arrest the leader of the Branch Davidians. At least that's how I understand it.
There wasn't a legal war, for one thing, but in addition Bush had declared
the open hostilities over. In any case, it would have been possible to
capture the brothers alive, but this option seems not to have been
considered.
I agree that the brothers were sadistic butchers, but it is tragic to see
our government emulating them.
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that
anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and
hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must
realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of
policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
I have to disagree with Rane. This isn't assassination. In the first
place, I don't believe killing Saddam or his sons is the goal. I
haven't been following this closely, but I think they'd prefer to take
him alive.
Second, they are legitimate military targets in what is obviously a war.
No, it hasn't been properly declared, but that's not especially Bush's
fault. Our wimpy congressional noodles (of both parties) have entirely
abandoned the congressional responsibility to declare war. They haven't
done in in ages. The notion that this is not a war is a stupid
political fiction. For all moral purposes this is a war.
I don't like the ransoms much, but I don't consider them illegal or
immoral in the current context. I think they bad tactically. It may
play well in the US, but I'd guess that it will spin badly in Iraq. In
the minds of Iraqis, who are the Iraq citizens who cooperate with the
Americans:
(1) Iraqi patriots working for a better future for all of Iraqi, or
(2) Greedy traitors, helping America against their own people for
personal gain.
It's vital to the success of the American mission in Iraq that the Iraqi
people eventually except option (1). The more people believe that, the
safer our troops in Iraq will be. Our enemies in Iraq will be pushing
view (2). The more people believe that, the more Iraqis will oppose us
or refuse to help us, and the more Americans will die. These extremely
public and extremely large bribes draw a lot of attention. The people
who get these ransoms will be among the most prominent Iraqis "friendly"
to the US, among the first to come to mind when ordinary Iraqi people
think of people friendly to America. And they fit resoundingly into
category (2). The whole thing can be spun very strongly against
America's mission in Iraq. Our claim is that we are there for the good
of the people to depose the hated tyrant Saddam. Offering huge bribes
to the people to try to convince them to help us catch Sadam undermines
that claim. If the people really hate Saddam and love us, then they
shouldn't need such buge bribes to cooperate with us. Offering so huge
a bribe suggests that it would take such a huge bribe to convince
someone to turn Saddam in to us.
So my reading of this is that the bribes improve Bush's image in the US
as a tough leader who will stop at nothing to bring down the bad guy,
but undermine our stated mission in Iraq. Which doesn't much surprise
me because I think Bush has told mostly lies about why we are in Iraq. I
much prefered presidents who mostly just lied about their sex lives.
I don't think these ransoms will ultimately cost more American lives.
They would if we meant to stay there in the long run, but I think Bush
will pack up and leave as soon as he can plausibly declare victory.
Killing or catching Saddam might well be that point, and the bribes
could speed that up. Getting our troops out faster may save more lives
than cranking up the hatred for our troops costs. Plus getting out
troops out before the election would be good for Bush.
It is apparently likely that one or both of the brothers committed actual suicide rather than "suicide by cop" as it were. Either way, no deliberate assassination attempt per se. In any event you don't conduct a 6-hour firefight to assassinate someone, you drop 4 2Klb smart bombs on the room they are in. The brothers chose to fight, they chose to die.
We don't have the full story yet, but it would have been perfectly practical to surround the building and wait them out (cutting power and water). If they commit suicide, then that's that. But there was no need for another Waco style seige. I consider it an assassination because killing them was a higher priority than capturing them.
resp:30 was a lot more analytical. Thanks, Jan! I don't entirely agree, but I agree with some of it at least. I don't think the reward money is necessarily an indication to anyone of a level of support for America or for Saddam Hussein. I think it was a recognition of risk. The person who accepts that reward money is sure enough going to be a target. He probably ought to leave the country for his own safety. How much would it cost for you to leave your country? It'd take more than $30 million for me, at least, it probably would. The person who collects, if he is a relative of Saddam Hussein's, probably has a lot more money than I do. Who knows, maybe he'll have to split it with 30 members of his family. Maybe they'll all have to leave Iraq. If they don't, maybe they'll all be killed. Maybe they'll be followed, wherever they go. How much money would it take for you to risk all that? Would you put your family in the situation of that kind of risk and turmoil just because you thought it was the right thing to do for your country? I just don't think $30 million is all that much for someone to get, considering what Saddam Hussein and his followers were/are like. I don't think it's much at all for America to spend. I think it's worth a lot to have a couple of top Hussein heirs out of the political picture in Iraq. As far as spin... sure, it's America buying someone's soul. (Geez, turning in a family member?) Or else it's not being cheap, and giving someone the means to be able to survive turning in the very top aides of a dangerous dictator. I think Iraqis might see it either way, or both ways at once. I think if it works, things settle down a lot, a new government is established, electricity and phone service and the economy are stabilized, and America doesn't occupy Iraq for decades, the spin will work out to be pretty good.
We checked the dictionary. It appears that Mr. rcurl did not and is once again using words to suit his own extreme viewpoints. as sas si nate : transitive verb 1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously 2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons 1. Do you believe the the Messrs. Saddams did not expect to be attacked?? 2. The news reported that prior to the extended firefight, U.S. troops went to the door of the residence and requested permission to search. If the request had been approved it would have facilitated the non- violent apprehension of the two gentlemen. And Mr. janc appears to have had a lapse of his normally well-state positions. As the constitution reads, it clearly does not provide Congress with the sole authority to go to war: Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . re: "#32 (rcurl): We don't have the full story yet, but it would have been perfectly practical to surround the building and wait them out..." How does Mr. rcurl know the practicality of such a strategy?? What possiblities exist for surruptitious escapes under the cover of darkness or through underground tunnels?
Re #33: Personally, I'd leave the U.S. for a lot less than $33 million. But that's just me.
Well. I would only consider it if I could go live in France. ;)
This response has been erased.
I've paid money (to airlines) in order to leave the US in the past, but I've also paid the airlines to bring me back here. There's are big differences between leaving home on a trip, leaving a previous home to move elsewhere knowing that you can come back and visit, and leaving knowing you can never see those you are close to again. Of course, 150 years ago that last scenario was pretty common, since that was what moving any significant distance meant. I have plenty of ancestors who did so, as probably do most of us. That doesn't make it any easier for me to imagine now.
This response has been erased.
re#32: Perhaps police officers have the training and the patience to wait out someone who shoots at them. Troopers on the otherhand are trained to kill someone who shoots at them.
There seems to be considerable objection to the killing of the brothers rather than their capture among Iraqi citizens. Many would have liked to have seen them captured and tried, largely to attain what people call "closure" for all those who suffered at their hands. That is, they wanted a full airing of their cruelty to their faces. It is apparent that Iraqi citizens were not consulted on the course of action to take in this. Typically, Bush's legions rush headlong and headstrong into use of force above thought.
Maybe there should have been a nationwide referendum in Iraq. "Should the Hussein brothers be shot and killed, or should US forces attempt to contain them and eventually arrest them?" That way, a popular decision could have been assured.
Re #40: Unless they're Detroit police officers. ;>
Perhaps Odai and Qusai could have benefited from human shields. (Mr. rcurl, are you busy these days??)
This response has been erased.
The "consultation" with the Iraqi public could have occurred if the brothers had been taken alive, in the form of a trial - you know, the former American standard of justive. Someone above objected to their killing being called "assassination". Perhaps "lynching" would be better? That is closer to another American standard of frontier justice, when the posse breaks down the jailhouse door and enacts "justice" on their own terms. Unfortunately there seems to be no strict but honest Marshalls in our army.
(Has Mr. rcurl been paying attention?)
Ah, yes, but could either of these two gentlemen have gotten a fair trial in Iraq?
This response has been erased.
If by the "LAST time" you mean the Bush I war - Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and we went to their defense. This time, we invaded Iraq.
This response has been erased.
That's pretty loopy (thanks, scg!). The Bush I war was ended with terms agreed to by the UN and everyone else involved in the action. That was then done and finished. Other things happened after that, but no one invaded anyone else, or even threatened them, until the US invaded Iraq with no legitimate provocation. Of course it all is in the course of history in a particular region, but there is no justification in the outcomes of the the Bush I war to justify instigating the Bush II war, except for the war mongering of the Bush II administration.
(...because the Iraqi government had met all of the terms and conditions agreed upon in 1991, right?)
To be the same war, it would kind of have to have the same armies on both sides. The first one was UN vs Iraq. The second one was US vs Iraq. It's different.
This response has been erased.
I am confident the US army would have happily taken the brothers Hussein captive, if they were sure they could do so. I find it hard to imagine how anyone could believe otherwise -- other than because of such passionate dislike for the president, military or war effort that they aren't rational. Maybe some Army private overlooked the political implications of a military assault on a house, but the whole military surely did not.
So, why didn't them captive? Nothing was stopping them except temporarily (until they ran out of ammo/food/water/poweer/allofthese)? 200 troops, several helicopters firing rockets, machine gun raking of the structure, and I believe RPGs, don't sound like an effort to take them captive.
What would you have them do if the Hussein brothers were shooting at them?
The current version of the official story is that the troops didn't know who was in the building, just that they were higher-ups. Anyway, they got some recognizable bodies to show off, which is almost as good. <blatant Bush-bashing ON> Actually, if they'd been taken alive they might have been able to give crucial evidence about WMD. But luckily we're longer apparently worried about WMDs, that was just an excuse to sell the war.
re resp:57: Rane, couldn't it be possible they would have escaped somehow, or been rescued by followers, or just caused a lot of damage, if they were beseiged? I think it might have been reasonable to assume any or all of those possibilities might exist and be worse than directly assaulting the building.
Nonsense. Troops can be protected from gunfire from the building. Tear gas and other non-lethal weapons are available to drive out occupants. Time was on our side. Escape routes would be known to us from the same source that informed us they were there. Our our troops so incompetent that they can't maintain a secure seige?
This response has been erased.
re resp:61: Things probably don't seem as clear when people are shooting at you, and when you have actual military experience like the commanders in Iraq, as they do when you're safely in another part of the world.
Re #46: Y'know, Rane, sometimes I wonder about your mental faculties. (Okay, *most* times, but still.) You seem to have the idea that two assaults on the building by soldiers, plus an advance warning with loudspeakers, does not constitute opportunity to surrender. Huh? (If they intended to die fighting, could we have prevented that?) You also seem to think that taking those people alive (which was not guaranteed even without the TOW missiles) was more important than the lives of our troops. Curiously enough, many (including you?) are saying that the continued occupation of Iraq isn't worth the lives of the troops we're losing. Care to explain this bit of schizophrenia? If the Iraqi people want to put someone on trial, Saddam is still out there. There are also a lot more high-ranking officials and SRG officers, prison wardens and others. There will be justice.
If the Iraqi people really want to put someone on tral, GW is still out there. I did not approve of the invasion of Iraq, although I fail to see how the deaths of these two cats is anything to be worried about, unless the reports were faked. Tony Blair and George Bush should still be hung for attacking a country that was not threatening us, (let's forget about Korea) but all the same, the urder of these two thugs hardly needed a trial to establish guilt.
Re #64: police actions in this country are condemned when the police just go in shooting. The negotiated surrender is much favored. There is no reason not to have held out for the surrender of the brothers. It can be done even if those sought are shooting, without injury to those surrounding the building. It has been done. We have too much of the SWAT team mentality. There was much to be gained from capturing these miscreants and conducting trials, if nothing else to demonstrate to the Iraqis that there is a brand of justice that is not like Saddam's, and that we support that kind of justice (We do, don't we? We don't seem to be demonstrating it very well). And, Russ, you must be awfully self-absorbed to think that only your opinion is of any value and the opinions of others call for personal attacks and stupid name calling, and distortions of what others write. Where have I said "continued occupation of Iraq isn't worth the lives of the troops we're losing"? What I think about that is that it was undertaking the war itself that put our soldiers into harm's way but now that we entered into that folly, we have no option but to work it out for the best. That should not include lynching parties.
I think your second paragab made a good point.
I totally agree with your second paragraph.
I agree with the second paragraph. Too bad the first shows so little understanding of the real world. When the only ones likely to be shooting are on the inside, it's easy to stand off and wait them out. When shooting can come from any where, it's far less easy to maintain a siege. And soldiers aren't police officers; the two work under very different rules. (This is one reason why the commanders were so unwilling to require their units to act as policemen when they were trying to fight a war.)
Apparently you haven't listened to the reports Rcurl. The soldiers surrounded the building and tried to get them to surrender. They took fire from the home and ffrom surrounding buildings. You don't have time to wait them out. Saddams supporters could have been moving in to give them support. remember, this is in the area of some of his strongest support. Do you want the rebels to puut together a strike force and catch our troops in a crossfire? Those two miscreants were not worth the blood of any more of our soldiers. I am not willing to trade life for life. And in a war torn country, you do not have the luxury to sit back and wait for them to act. To do so is deadly. Maybe you believe their really is an impossible missions force that could sneak in there and take them without firing a single shot. FIne, go watch the movies, forget the real world. How long could they have held out? Depands on haow much food and water and ammo they had. It was not an assasination. It was a military engagement.
Re #66: Ah, our emphasis on negotiated surrender must be why Ruby Ridge and Waco have acquired the connotations they now have. Thanks so much for clearing that up!
This response has been erased.
They were told it was the brothers. But it all comes down to the difference between shoot-first and ask questions afterward, versus thinking diplomatically. The USA current mode is shoot first. Of course, that has gotten ua into a guerilla war of attrition, with us as the attritees, which has no end in sight. We are vastly outnumbered by the "missing" Iraqi Republican Guard.
This response has been erased.
re resp:66: The advantages of capturing the Hussein brothers, versus killing them, is indeed clear and obvious to everyone around, and was last week as well. It's clear to us, it's clear to the US troops, it's really, *really* clear. If the troops didn't do it that way, then there's a reason for it. It may be that every single one of the US troops is irremediably stupid, and add in vicious, and that they killed the Hussein brothers for malicious reasons. I guess you could dream up such a scenario, for a poorly plotted novel, anyway. You could even imagine the White House ordered the Husseins to be killed rather than captured. But, you can't do either of those things, and believe them to be true, without being an idiot. It may be convenient for one's political labels to assume the government and military are both that dumb. It is obviously wildly inaccurate, though, given even the slightest moment's thought.
Since you assume that our military "can do no wrong", you arrive at your conclusions. But, as you know, "to err is human". Clinton said so.
This response has been erased.
re resp:76: I hardly assumed that our military "can do no wrong". You are assuming they can do no right. You are missing entirely that it's not likely the commanders in the region didn't realize the advantages and disadvantages of the choices they made. In fact, they have more information than we do, even if we all read a couple of newspapers a day. They're also reasonably intelligent. Prejudices that people only go into the military if they are too stupid to contribute to society are wildly inaccurate.
What's your evidence for that?
This response has been erased.
re resp:79: What's my evidence for what? That not all of the military are idiots? My experience in the National Guard, and with some excellent prior-service sergeants, was sufficient. That they have more information than we do? Hahaha. That prejudices about only stupid people being in the military are wrong? I present Todd Plesco (loginid tod), Rich Sheff (krokus), and even myself (though I was a part-timer, not a real service man such as they were). And your evidence to the contrary?
This response has been erased.
It is incorrect to make categorical statements about the honesty, morality, or any other characteristic of a *group* of people. Remember Mai Lai in Vietnam? The serviceman in Iraq that tossed a grenade into his colleagues tent and murdered some of them? There will also be individuals that are cruel, indifferent to suffering, too quick to shoot, etc. This can include persons of any rank. It is a significant problem that "war" is used as an excuse for all sorts of despicable acts. I don't care what justification they - or you - manufacture after the fact: it was possible and they should have captured the brothers alive.
This response has been erased.
re resp:83: Rane, you were calling all of the US troops involved in the Hussein brothers incident idiots (resp:76 and other comments based on that assumption). I was arguing that they are not all idiots (resp:78, para.2), in case you've forgotten our respective positions. You were questioning my assertion (resp:79) and I proved it correct (resp:81). Now, maybe it's time for you to defend your prejudicial and fatuous comments on which your arguments have been based, or to admit you were wrong. I think you don't have any basis at all for your remarks throughout this item.
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.
Nowhere did I state that you stated that.
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.
This response has been erased.
I doubt that a TOW missle was a necessity: they weren't shooting at a tank.
This response has been erased.
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.
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....
I don't see a difference between "said" and "stated" But then I've never gotten Leeron to accept that position either.
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.
I can only say that I see a pattern in the war and aftermaths: unprovoked invasion; "shock and awe"; force overuse in apprehensions.
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?
This response has been erased.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
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.
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.
They used a surgical anesthetic, which wasn't safe in that situation.
This response has been erased.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
duud
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.
Re #108: You're actually defending the tactics used at Waco?
Read it again.
Yeah, I guess he wasn't exactly.
John, the funny thing about Jan's #10 is that I didn't view it as Bush bashing. It was a good point which I hadn't considered, and I think it condemns not Bush but the American people. (A $3 Million reward isn't enough to impress us that Bush is being tough? (That's less than Federov gets per game, right?) Having said that, I totally disagree with Jan's #30, the part where he states that ransoms (rewards) undermine the position of the US as a friend in that we have to "bribe" people to assist us. What Jan might be missing is that the millions of Iraqis who would be happy to assist us (even for free) just don't have the info we need. We're trying to convince the dozens who do have inside information, at potential risk to themselves, to come forward. Similarly, rewards offered for the capture of domestic criminals or for finding lost pets don't mean that we don't want criminals captured or puppies found. Rane actually lost the "military intelligence/idiots" argument when he asked John to prove that not everyone in the military was stupid. (See #79) As for "assassination", obviously this was not one, as Rane himself later cites the Geneva Conventions. The option of surrender was given and refused. There was no reason to believe (even after the fact) that those inside would surrender rather than fight to the death. Even if you attempt to starve them out, ignoring potential threats from outside the building, they might choose to go out in a hail of gunfire. Indeed, consider their decision tree. Faced with a vastly superior fighting force, they refused surrender. Why? 1. They were not going to be taken alive or 2. they believed they could extricate themselves. Sure, they may have changed their minds (unlikely), but in any event, the question becomes one of whether the lives of American soldiers should be risked to capture rather than kill these butchers in battle.
they should take out the micheal jackson compound.
I agree that there is a very plausible justification for the high ransom - we are trying to tempt people Saddam trusts to turn on him. But I still think that it is susceptable to spinning in a way that undermines the American mission.
Yet it can also be read as determination to finish the job. (Left undone a decade ago.)
If we were talking about an action that would have the potential to be spun so negatively to the American public, Bush wouldn't have choosen that course of action. He wouldn't trust that he could control the spin in the US. I'm sure he's even less confident of his ability to control the spin in the middle east. If this were a question of how something would be received by Americans, he'd have found another solution to the problem that would spin better. (I don't know what that would be in this case. maybe you set up an Iraqi police force, give them a huge funding grant to help them catch Sadam (which they use largely to bribe people). I don't know exactly. Our politicians are so much better at inventing these devices than I am.) If Bush really wanted to convince the middle east that he was in Iraq for the good of the Iraqis, then he'd have to be doing a lot of things differently. This bribe is one. Another thing that would make a huge difference would be if you threw a lot of effort into getting sewage and electrical systems up quickly in the major cities. (No illusions about this - it would be extremely hard to do - things were a mess long before we arrived.) Doing that would be an obvious good to many Iraqis. It would be a convincing demonstration that we are there to bring a higher quality of life to Iraq. Hey, give Halliburton the contract - they can export a barrel of oil for each Iraqi they supply with adequate sewage, water and electricity. I think Bush and his gang have a vision of the future which is basically an American Global Economic Empire. A world where American can freely exercise it's military power to ensure that things go the American way, and where America need answer to no other nation. That sounds good to many Americans. Not to me. Bush's father started on a different course when he went out of his way to bring the whole world in on the first Iraq war. He took a big step to establishing a world view where American was a leader in a community of nations, but where other nations were treated with respect. In that sense, this second Bush war in Iraq isn't a continuation of the first, but an erasure of the first. If you have the power for it, acting the petty tyrant is a lot easier than acting as a community leader. It would certainly have been a great deal harder to get anything done in Iraq if we had to coordinate with the UN. Too hard for the younger Bush, apparantly. But in the long term, working with the world would pay off. Each time you do the job that way, nations get more used to working with each other and trusting each other. You get slowly better at getting things done in that mode. You build up credibility. Which has all been flushed down the toilet now, for the sake of being able to efficiently pursue Bush's objectives in Iraq. And why? Where was the pressing national interest that demanded that we trash our international crediability? There was never any evidence that Saddam was a imminent threat to the USA. If there had been, as there was in Afghanistan, there would be some excuse for unilateral action. But there isn't and never was. They did it this way because they want the American Empire, not the Community of Nations. Lots of Americans agree. I don't. Add that to the "Patriot Act" kind of business, where American's rights are restricted to concentrate more power in the government (is this a Republican ideal?) and you have the two faces of why I hate Bush. His response to 9/11 has been to try to concentrate power in his own hands. To do this he has actually been playing up the threat of terrorism, making people even more scared than they legitimately need to be. That's not a "show of leadership in the face of terrorism", that's "exploitation of the fear caused by terrorism for your own ends".
yes!!!
Opinionjournal.com (8/1/03) Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that allied search teams have "found dozens of fighter jets from Iraq's air force buried beneath the sands." This took four months--and airplanes are a lot bigger than vials of gas or germs. And, just for fun (or maybe they're serious): Left Coast Quagmire California is a desert land roughly the size of Iraq. It is also an object lesson in the dangers of trying to impose democracy in a culture that is not ready for it. California "is degenerating into a banana republic," writes former Enron adviser Paul Krugman in his New York Times column. Leon Panetta, himself a Californian, writes in the Los Angeles Times that California is undergoing a "breakdown in [the] trust that is essential to governing in a democracy." Newsday quotes Bob Mulholland, another California political activist, as warning of "a coup attempt by the Taliban element." Others say a move is under way to "hijack" California's government. What isn't widely known is that the U.S. has a large military presence in California. And our troops are coming under attack from angry locals. "Two off-duty Marines were stabbed, one critically, when they and two companions were attacked by more than a dozen alleged gang members early Thursday," KSND-TV reports from San Diego, a city in California's south. How many young American men and women will have to make the ultimate sacrifice before we realize it isn't worth it? Is the Bush administration too proud to ask the U.N. for help in pacifying California? Plainly California has turned into a quagmire, and the sooner we bring our troops back home, the better.
lol
Re #118: What you describe is basically the neo-conservative agenda when it comes to foreign policy. Even a lot of people on the right have started to question the wisdom of it. Unfortunately the damage that's been done will take a long time to correct.
You have several choices: