|
Grex > Agora46 > #105: Uday and Qusay dead; victims of a family dispute over money? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 122 responses total. |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 76 of 122:
|
Jul 28 06:49 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 122:
|
Jul 28 16:20 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 78 of 122:
|
Jul 28 17:40 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 79 of 122:
|
Jul 28 17:49 UTC 2003 |
What's your evidence for that?
|
tod
|
|
response 80 of 122:
|
Jul 28 17:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 81 of 122:
|
Jul 28 19:05 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
tod
|
|
response 82 of 122:
|
Jul 28 19:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 122:
|
Jul 28 19:44 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 84 of 122:
|
Jul 28 19:58 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 85 of 122:
|
Jul 28 21:58 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 86 of 122:
|
Jul 29 00:15 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 87 of 122:
|
Jul 29 01:19 UTC 2003 |
Nowhere did I state that you stated that.
|
scott
|
|
response 88 of 122:
|
Jul 29 01:29 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 89 of 122:
|
Jul 29 18:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 90 of 122:
|
Jul 29 20:14 UTC 2003 |
I doubt that a TOW missle was a necessity: they weren't shooting at a tank.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 122:
|
Jul 29 20:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|