|
Grex > Agora46 > #105: Uday and Qusay dead; victims of a family dispute over money? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 122 responses total. |
pvn
|
|
response 31 of 122:
| 
Jul 24 04:34 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 122:
|
Jul 24 05:41 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 33 of 122:
|
Jul 24 13:07 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 34 of 122:
|
Jul 24 16:31 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 122:
|
Jul 24 19:59 UTC 2003 |
Re #33: Personally, I'd leave the U.S. for a lot less than $33 million.
But that's just me.
|
slynne
|
|
response 36 of 122:
|
Jul 24 21:15 UTC 2003 |
Well. I would only consider it if I could go live in France. ;)
|
tod
|
|
response 37 of 122:
|
Jul 24 22:11 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 38 of 122:
|
Jul 24 22:33 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 122:
|
Jul 24 22:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
pvn
|
|
response 40 of 122:
|
Jul 25 04:16 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 122:
|
Jul 25 06:24 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 42 of 122:
|
Jul 25 12:49 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 122:
|
Jul 25 12:49 UTC 2003 |
Re #40: Unless they're Detroit police officers. ;>
|
klg
|
|
response 44 of 122:
|
Jul 25 16:21 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps Odai and Qusai could have benefited from human shields. (Mr.
rcurl, are you busy these days??)
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 122:
|
Jul 25 16:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 122:
|
Jul 25 16:54 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 47 of 122:
|
Jul 25 17:02 UTC 2003 |
(Has Mr. rcurl been paying attention?)
|
novomit
|
|
response 48 of 122:
|
Jul 25 17:06 UTC 2003 |
Ah, yes, but could either of these two gentlemen have gotten a fair trial in
Iraq?
|
tod
|
|
response 49 of 122:
|
Jul 25 17:11 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 122:
|
Jul 25 17:30 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 51 of 122:
|
Jul 25 18:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 52 of 122:
|
Jul 25 19:27 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
carson
|
|
response 53 of 122:
|
Jul 25 19:37 UTC 2003 |
(...because the Iraqi government had met all of the terms and conditions
agreed upon in 1991, right?)
|
janc
|
|
response 54 of 122:
|
Jul 25 19:45 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 55 of 122:
|
Jul 25 19:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|