|
Grex > Agora46 > #105: Uday and Qusay dead; victims of a family dispute over money? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 122 responses total. |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 122:
|
Jul 23 20:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 24 of 122:
|
Jul 23 21:13 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 25 of 122:
|
Jul 23 23:51 UTC 2003 |
A six hour firefight is an "assassination"?
Now does Mr. rcurl understand why I wish to have him define the terms
he tosses about????
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 122:
|
Jul 24 00:08 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 122:
|
Jul 24 00:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 28 of 122:
|
Jul 24 00:55 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 122:
|
Jul 24 00:57 UTC 2003 |
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)
|
janc
|
|
response 30 of 122:
|
Jul 24 02:48 UTC 2003 |
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.
|