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.

response 101 of 122:

Jul 31 03:20 UTC 2003

Oh, nuts.  You can tunnel under sand.  You just need something to hold 
it up and stabilize it, such as sandbags or large amounts of concrete.

re resp:97: I don't have any training in this area, and so your 
opinion is as good as mine.  I was trained as a combat engineer, which 
is an infantryman with a shovel.

There are means of getting armed people out of a building, including 
1) siege, 2) a subtle attack such as sneaking in an unknown entrance 
or using a secret agent, 3) chemical weapons such as tear gas

1) A siege is a good choice if you control all of the surrounding 
area.  Hostage situations and beseiged insane gunmen situations are 
usually resolved in favor of the law because the law controls the 
surrounding area.  If the US military fully controlled the area around 
the house in which the Husseins were holding out, they probably could 
have just waited them out.  Downsides: The house could have then 
become a rally point for disgruntled Iraqis or even a target of 
Baathist military strikes; the Iraqis inside the house could have 
known of, or found, some way to escape.

2) The subtle approach requires that nothing unexpectedly goes wrong.  
It also requires a secret usable for a surprise for the beseiged 
people.  Apparently we didn't have any secret double agents with the 
Husseins.

3) Chemical weapons are notoriously unreliable.  They blow away, they 
dissipate because of heat, they blow over "us" instead of "them", 
they're defensible against if you have a gas mask and MOPP suit.  And 
of course, they're illegal to use in a war.  

response 103 of 122:

Jul 31 11:59 UTC 2003

Gas was used in that Moscow theatre standoff with the Chechen rebels only a
year or two ago, and it ended up killing a significant number of peopl.