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.

response 79 of 122:

Jul 28 17:49 UTC 2003

What's your evidence for that?

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?

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.

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.

response 87 of 122:

Jul 29 01:19 UTC 2003

Nowhere did I state that you stated that.

response 93 of 122:

Jul 29 22:31 UTC 2003

You are leaping to a false conclusion, not based on anything I or anyone
else said. 

Nor did I say that the raid was "foolish". The raid was appropreate - for
the purpose of capturing the brothers alive. 

Yes, the military erred. The government erred in starting an unprovoked
war, so it is not too surprising that some elements of the military would
subsequently err in executing it. 

You are arguing that because a mistake was made, it could not have been
a mistake. Good luck....

response 95 of 122:

Jul 30 02:25 UTC 2003

You're being deliberately and determinedly obtuse, Scott.  I'm done 
explaining it to you.

re resp:93: Rane, I am stating that you are not considering all of the 
facts available to you.  You have come to an incorrect conclusion.  
The results of that raid were not the best imaginable results, but 
that does not mean there was a mistake.  Your criteria are in error.

The military decided the best course of action was to respond 
forcefully in that situation, and to kill the inhabitants of the 
house.  It was not a bad choice, even though we can all imagine 
potentially better results from that raid.  Possible worse results 
have been mentioned as well.

The advisability of the war, and the information used to come to the 
decision to go to war, did not determine the advisability or 
information available for every one of the specific decisions made by 
commanders in the Army.  For example, should hot dogs or hamburgers be 
served for dinner?  Should a machine gun or hand grenade be used at 
time X?  I don't think you can show a connection between the 
beginnings of the war, and whether it was a better idea to use a TOW 
rather than a seige to end the raid which killed the sons of Saddam 
Hussein.  If you can, please demonstrate.

response 97 of 122:

Jul 31 00:46 UTC 2003

Dear grexers with ground combat training/experience:
Is there some plausable way to capture heavily armed hostile soldiers
who are actively defending a well-fortified building?  (My understanding
is that the missles were used because smaller stuff was just bouncing 
off the heavy reinforced concrete "armor" of the structure - anyone know
more about this?)  Might armored engineering equipment suitable for such
a task have been available, and (if so), how long might it have taken to
get deployed & engaged?  If a well "dug in" hostile seriously does not
want to be taken alive (a pretty reasonable viewpoint for Saddam's sons),
what are the best ways to do it anyway (and how good are they)?  If an
otherwise-unremarkable building turns out to be well-fortified and well-
defended, and supposedly contains high-level enemy leaders, how likely
should (an) excape tunnel(s) be considered?  How fast can such a tunnel
be dug in a siege situation?

response 99 of 122:

Jul 31 01:40 UTC 2003

There are tunnels under the borders of the Gaza strip which are used by 
terrorists.  Seems to us that there is plenty of sand thereabouts.