|
Grex > Agora46 > #105: Uday and Qusay dead; victims of a family dispute over money? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 122 responses total. |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 56 of 122:
|
Jul 26 01:21 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 57 of 122:
|
Jul 26 01:43 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
scg
|
|
response 58 of 122:
|
Jul 26 01:48 UTC 2003 |
What would you have them do if the Hussein brothers were shooting at them?
|
scott
|
|
response 59 of 122:
|
Jul 26 02:05 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 60 of 122:
|
Jul 26 02:18 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 61 of 122:
|
Jul 26 03:01 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
tod
|
|
response 62 of 122:
|
Jul 26 03:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 63 of 122:
|
Jul 26 12:06 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
russ
|
|
response 64 of 122:
|
Jul 26 13:19 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
novomit
|
|
response 65 of 122:
|
Jul 26 14:30 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 122:
|
Jul 26 18:25 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
novomit
|
|
response 67 of 122:
|
Jul 26 21:21 UTC 2003 |
I think your second paragab made a good point.
|
mary
|
|
response 68 of 122:
|
Jul 26 22:31 UTC 2003 |
I totally agree with your second paragraph.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 69 of 122:
|
Jul 27 01:30 UTC 2003 |
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.)
|
bru
|
|
response 70 of 122:
|
Jul 27 02:23 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
russ
|
|
response 71 of 122:
|
Jul 27 08:44 UTC 2003 |
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!
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 122:
|
Jul 27 18:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 73 of 122:
|
Jul 27 18:50 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 74 of 122:
|
Jul 27 19:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 75 of 122:
|
Jul 28 03:05 UTC 2003 |
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.
|