|
Grex > Agora46 > #105: Uday and Qusay dead; victims of a family dispute over money? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
russ
|
|
Uday and Qusay dead; victims of a family dispute over money?
| 
Jul 22 21:25 UTC 2003 |
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. |
tod
|
|
response 1 of 122:
|
Jul 22 21:37 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 2 of 122:
|
Jul 22 21:59 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 122:
|
Jul 22 22:09 UTC 2003 |
What the FUCK are we doing giving away $30 million dollars to some
schmuck backstabber just for letting us kill his cousins for him?
|
scott
|
|
response 4 of 122:
|
Jul 22 22:16 UTC 2003 |
Don't worry, there's plenty of money in the budget thanks to Bush's excellent
fiscal policies.
</SARCASM>
|
tod
|
|
response 5 of 122:
|
Jul 22 22:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 6 of 122:
|
Jul 23 00:13 UTC 2003 |
nad it was a 6 hout firefight...
|
jor
|
|
response 7 of 122:
|
Jul 23 00:47 UTC 2003 |
200 against 4
|
jep
|
|
response 8 of 122:
|
Jul 23 02:24 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
lk
|
|
response 9 of 122:
|
Jul 23 05:44 UTC 2003 |
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?)
|
janc
|
|
response 10 of 122:
|
Jul 23 06:06 UTC 2003 |
Irrelevant. The rewards had to sound big to Americans, because they need to
convince Americans that Bush is tough on Sadam.
|
pvn
|
|
response 11 of 122:
|
Jul 23 06:14 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
janc
|
|
response 12 of 122:
|
Jul 23 13:46 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 13 of 122:
|
Jul 23 14:05 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
sabre
|
|
response 14 of 122:
|
Jul 23 15:29 UTC 2003 |
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
|
gull
|
|
response 15 of 122:
|
Jul 23 15:31 UTC 2003 |
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? ;>
|
edina
|
|
response 16 of 122:
|
Jul 23 17:02 UTC 2003 |
Ann Coulter. ROTFLMAO!!!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 122:
|
Jul 23 17:24 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 18 of 122:
|
Jul 23 17:33 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 122:
|
Jul 23 17:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 20 of 122:
|
Jul 23 17:41 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 122:
|
Jul 23 17:55 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
janc
|
|
response 22 of 122:
|
Jul 23 20:29 UTC 2003 |
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.
|