www.msnbc.com


Will the strikes against US troops lessen? What does their capture/death mean on the war in Iraq?

Well, it depends on whether they're dead or whether they escaped, really. After all, we were told that Saddam was "probably" dead after the bunker-busting attack at the outset of war, but it didn't stop him.

Realistically, I think even if they are dead, Iraq is in such chaos that those that oppose the allied occupation could easily carry on their attacks with just the rumour that they got away and are in hiding.

A daft analogy, I know, but there are still people in the world who think King Arthur is still going to come back and fight for them. Compared to that, whether the survivors of Saddam's regime surive for much longer is more or less irrelevant.

If the allies can get the water and electricity turned back on I think a lot of the problems would go away. Certainly the hostiles will find it harder to blend into a shouting crowd, as there'll be less reason for anyone who isn't a rebel to shout about anything.

I agree. I don't think that anything will change until the basic necessities are there. When people feel safe from attacks, have running water, electricity, etc. then the attacks will die down.

lol please tell me you're kidding....... You are joking aren't you? heh Well, I suppose those are the same people who spot Elvis in the grocery store.

I don't think it matters. I think the resistance will fight on with or without those two. I don't think anything will change

--cheers

I think it does make a difference.

Killing (or capturing) the opposition leaders makes the followers think twice.

Resistance requires organization. Organization requires leadership. If the leadership takes a blow, so then does the organization.

I read somewhere that Saddam had crafted a plan (pre-war) which is now emerging as this guerilla opposition. Regardless of who planned this action, killing (or capturing) the leaders is a needed.

As far as I know, they didn't play a leadership role... Sort of like the Queen of England. She doesn't really have to excersize any of her power. People respect her opinions and decisions so much that she doesn't have to do much politically. She's more of a symbol than a politician. Saddam's sons didn't have the power she does, but they were just sort of a reminder of Saddam and his authority in a sense. With them gone, nothing will happen probably, everything will continue as it had before.

I disagree. Saddam's sons ran alot of the torture and murder campaigns. They were symbols, but active symbols. They were (and perhaps continue to be) scum. Their removal is important on many levels: symbolic and realistic.

It is definitely one more step in removing any doubt that Saddam could make a comeback.

I agree, it helps secure that Saddams regime will not return, but I don't think it helps a lot with security, until we have Saddam himself. until we have him, he'll have supporters who will sabotage and attemps to disrupt our abilities to reconstruct the nation.

I agree that it is a small step.

Since it is "confirmed" that they are dead we shall see if the attacks increase/decrease. But what if Sadam was confirmed to be dead? Would all his supporters lay down their arms for good or would the attacks grow exponentially?

we could capture saddam and put him on display in baghdad and people would still fight the troops. I would guess that a good 75% of the people attacking the troops are doing so because they see america as an invader that needs to be expelled from their country.

this will spur on those that are supporters of hussein and his regime and give them something to rally around. (revenge of their leaders deaths)

It may be a step in lessening the attacks on Coalition troops, but I don't imagine their deaths or even the confirmed death of Saddam Hussein could stop the attacks on our soldiers anymore. In addition to remaining loyalists and disgruntled Iraqis there is still the threat posed by foreign militants crossing the borders from Iran and Syria to assist in daily attacks on convoys and posted guards.

While I don't think the attacks will stop with the deaths of these two or their father, I do think the death or capture of Saddam himself might finally reduce the number of attacks, giving at least the loyalists and disgruntled citizens less of something to fight for.

Let's not forget the fear factor. This should be lowered significantly among the Iraqis and will lead to ever increasing information from them.

When the statue was toppled back in April it was symbolic. Today's events are real. Hopefully, Sadaam will soon follow his sons into the fiery furnace of hell. That day can't come soon enough.

I believe strongly that this will slow down the number of organized "gureilla" attacks on our troops because of this little known fact: Both Uday & Qusay were "leaders" of the Iraqi special forces such as the Republican Guard & the Fedayeen, therefore, they might have been the ones who were supporting these insurgents with this money: Money taken from bank by Saddam & sons

I think that sending more ground troops would merely give the enemy more targets until we find and eliminate the people funding them. And introducing Saddam’s sons to the gates of hell was a great start.

They did run torutre campaigns. However, those campaigns are a thing of the past. The regime isn't in power, and thus, isn't able to do anything like that. So, what Saddam's sons both symbolized, is something that doesn't exist anymore. The Iraqis can't look at it as the loss of great tactical leaders..... they can only look at it as the people going out with the trend, so to speak.

Not true. They were very active in major things.

But, you have to give credit where credit is due. This was a huge victory for the US and I think it will have a substantial impact on the guerilla war.

Killing his sons will not affect the people's will to fight, but it will definitely throw a wrench in their means to fight. It won't be much of a guerilla war if they have no weapons and I would have no problem believing (even from our sorry-excuse for intelligence services) that this was cutting the head off the snake.

Send in CSI Baghdad! (or wherever)

The implication is that there are two less reasons for U.S. troops to stick around. Let them come home. Let the U.N. handle the occupation and reestablishment of a government in Iraq.


amlord, Perhaps you meant to say that effective resistance requires organization, because as long as there are people who can throw stones or refuse to be ordered around by the occupying force, there is resistance.

That's why we needed to nail these yahoos. They were the main reason not many Iraqis wanted to cooperate with us....especially the scientists. They feared that if we cooperate & they were found out to have cooperated and Saddam somehow got back into power, it'd be the 1991 revolts massacres all over again


DaytonRocker:



Bingo. The gureillas are targeting us because they want us out so they can have Saddam back in business. After today, that idea is out the window.




Mosul.

If they find titanium pins and old spinal injuries in one of them, it's Uiday & his injuries from the '96 assassination attempt

I don't think we care about ineffective resistance...

I also can't agree with those who think the majority of Iraqis (or any sizable number of them) are against the American presence. These people celebrated in the streets. These people see that the American presence is rebuilding their country. I need to find the poll that I saw that said only about 15% (somewhere in that neighborhood) of Iraqis wanted the Americans to leave.

I believe there is a small, well-organized resistance that has been in place since before the war. Look at how the war was fought...almost no "real" armed resistance, only these same style guerilla attacks from the fedayeen(sp?) Saddam.

The people of Iraq realize what an evil person Saddam was. Regardless of whether we are there or not, Saddam or the Baathists will NEVER lead Iraq again, you can count on that. If Saddam pops up 2 years after we are gone, I don't think any President (Democrat or Republican) would let him be in power for long...

If you look at the entire "war", it has been virtually bloodless on our side. Compare our less than 200 dead in the past 3+ months with the 600 who died in Liberia in ONE day of fighting. Compare our losses to the thousands of Iraqis who were raped, tortured and murdered at Saddam's hands.

Good riddance to these thugs and the legacy that they represent of Iraq's tortuous regime.

Amen Amlord

The celebratory gunfire in Baghdad after the news of the deaths says it all...Sure there are still loyalists (like the guy who complained that they shot up the house the brothers were in , who turned out to be a cousin of Saddam's) but this is a big blow.

World leaders are happy, and expect this to help quell the guerilla activity...

World Feels Relief, Anger at Killing of Saddam's Sons

Ahh, found my link to the poll..
Iraqis Want Americans To Stay
(emphasis mine)

It means that post-war Iraq is two steps closer to recovery. If nothing else, you can always count on plain and simple greed to get the ball rolling. $15 million to an Iraqi informant? I say its a small price to pay for bringing those two to the grave. This is a major success and it will likely help remove the fear of Saddam's return, disrupt the resistance, and encourage citizens to betray the remnants of the regime. I know Democrats rushed out to highlight the bad parts and make sure no one enjoyed it too long, but hey, their unemployed, thats kind of their job. But I disagree with the Dems that we should send more human targets into Iraq. My big point about that has been and continues to be that the only progress we will make is going to come from hunting down those who are sponsoring and arming the resistance. Thats why this is so significant.

I must be the only one here sickened by American bloodthirst, not only for the dictators we empowered, but reveling in the assasinations of their families. Shall we hunt down and kill Saddams mother and father too?

Lets go back a bit, to when Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam at the very same time he was gassing the Kurds. We were then providing him the weapons needed, both conventional and chemical to have a 7 year war with Iran. That was our interest, and he was our friend. We did not care about the Kurds, and still do not.

He attacked Kuwaiit in 1991 over a border dispute, that was it, a border dispute. We crushed Iraq, and not a peep was heard from Saddam ever since. The Iraq regime put down insurgency, much like many in this day, it was brutal, but we were his friend and supporter anyway.
The dictatorship was much like Kim Jong Il, Saudi Arabia, and many nations in Africa. This was nothing new nor has been since.

The feeding frenzy on Saddam Hussein and his family is a bit over the top. We are not even talking about a Formidable Enemy. Nothing to do with 911, nothing really to do with anything except being a really bad guy and brutal dictator. There are a lot of bad guys, shall we kill them all, their sons and daughters and grandchildren. Were Rumnsfeld/Reagan bad guys when they supported Hussein against Iran and gave him every weapon concievable to do what THEY WANTED HIM TO DO? Should they and their families be assasinated? This is rhetorical and not a threat, crap I dont want the FBI at my door.

I wonder what is going on with Americans today. Our attention span so short that we dont remember or aknowledge that we support brutal dictatorships worldwide, and NOW, we relish invading countries, fostering them for unknown years and killing the families of those we made?

I must have been the only one in the nation to feel bad about the killing of Saddams sons today, because something inside felt that we are not going about things in the right way.
This is basic extermination, how did we suddenly become assasins of whomever we feel like, when we share the blame. Its not as if we wont ever do it again. And when we do, should the new insurgents to American rule be exterminated also? For how long and with what right? Is there an end to making the world over in our image? Not likely.

We have become spiritually bankrupt, despite our pounding of Christian beliefs throughout the nation. I think we have become a sick people who can no longer see through the red. We seek blood from those who had nothing to do with our problems, and buy into our administrations greed. They have done well, and made a bunch of sheeple through incessant fear propaganda. We have no common sense anymore and spend all our time looking at ghosts.

I know this commentary will make me no friends. Im not even sure I can explain myself properly since what is going on in me is not about words, but more about feeling that we as a nation are seriously losing perspective and collectively becoming something of a monster, totally out of control to our base instincts. Buying into lies because we need someone, anyone for vengance. Saddam was certainly ideal.

Well, I respect your views Artemise and agree that American society seems deformed and sick in the 21st century, however I have zero sympathy for the sons of Saddam, they deserved to die. However, I thought it was sad that a innocent 14 year old boy died along with his father, he didn't deserve to die, despite the evil of his father and grandfather hussein.

I don't think it will have much of an effect on the gureillas campaign:
see: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article4195.htm



Anyway, new groups are emerging to attack the Americans, Shia fundamentalists, Sunni Muslims as well as Saddam loyalists.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG24Ak03.html

Artemise:

These guys were murderers unto themselves, not just by being Saddam's sons. They were arguably more brutal than Saddam. Saddam has one other son and 3 daughters, none of which are in "The Deck". So we are not randomly targeting innocents.

The 101st Airborne tried to take them alive, but were heavily resisted. The US forces aren't going to risk casualties, so overwhelming force was used. I would think we have an interest in capturing these two alive, but unfortunately it didn't go down that way.

As for our former "backing" of Saddam: As I have argued here at length, that gives us MORE responsibility to end his regime, not less. A past sin does not relieve future culpability. This guy was a true menace, especially to the Iraqi people.

Thomas: I can't agree that "farmers" are well-equipped with RPGs and other heavy arms. I just don't buy it. They are backed by someone with alot of money, probably Saddam. Perhaps not directly, since they claim to be glad to be free of him, but someone is pouring money into this guerilla war.

We know that Muslims are sometimes fanatical, and that might explain some of the resistance. It certainly does not explain all the resistance, however.

Well Artemise, we could have just continued knocking on their door, hoping they'd invite us in for a drink. Once there, we could have asked them if there was anything we could do to help them get through this trying time. Maybe put them in charge of the new Iraqi gov't for instance. That might help you to feel better about their poor plight.

For those who constantly raise the issue of brutal dictators being found the world over, give us time and we'll get to them. Hopefully, most of them will see the real possibility of the righteous wrath headed their way and capitulate before we get there. For those who don't, may God have mercy on their souls.

No Art, you are just getting too into this.

Those two buzzards needed to go because of their sick pasts.


I think this will start retalitory strikes but in the long term, it'll cause a serious knock in the head to the gurreillas

In response to Passion51:

'Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America. Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.

They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals.

They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../dictators.html

On August 18, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, “Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas”. Quoting anonymous US “senior military officers”, the NYT “revealed” that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war”. The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Nor did the NYT dwell on the extreme cynicism and hypocrisy of the current US administration's citing of those same terrible atrocities — which were disregarded at the time by Washington — and those same weapons programs — which no longer exist, having been dismantled and destroyed in the decade following the 1991 Gulf War — to justify a massive new war against the people of Iraq.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm

Bush Sr and James Baker were securing and insureing loans of 1-2 Billion for Iraq right up to the invasion of Kuwaiit, and noone cared about chemical weapons use or deployment:
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm

Many US companies sold Iraq raw material for creating chemical and biological weapons before the 1991 war:

When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons.

From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and Iran waged a terrible war against each other, a war that might not have begun if President Jimmy Carter had not given the Iraqis a green light to attack Iran, in response to repeated provocations. Throughout much of the war, the United States provided military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping that each would inflict severe damage on the other:
During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.


Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.'

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119547.php

Now , Lets talk about a blame game and Who is Evil? And why one side of the story gets exterminated and the other are 'the good guys?' Only in the mafia sense of the wording.
By the way, we still have all this stuff to sell to the next 'ruthless US backed dictator'.

We're straying a bit. Billy Jean wanted us to focus on the future of relations with Iraq in light of the apparant death of Saddam's sons:

I think you're minimizing the affect these thugs had on their country. Saddam's mom and dad didn't run WMD programs in the early 90's and run torture campaigns. Regardless of how you feel about this war, that can't be disputed. We knew they had WMD back in the early 90's because we have the receipts.

I have been against this invasion and occupation since day one. Launching a pre-emptive strike based on conjecture wrote a check we could not cash. We will have a very, very difficult time pre-emptively striking a target that truly is an imminent threat. Nobody will believe our intelligence sources any longer (except koolaid drinking partisans).

With that being said, we're there. And I want every American over there to come home without so much as a hair on their head harmed. The politics are here. The killing is there. So, if taking out Saddam's sons makes our troops safer, it's a no brainer.

As far as liberation and all that crap, I wouldn't sacrifice one American for an entire region of Muslims - wherever they are from. So, anything we can do to minimize the damage needs to be done.

I think the gun fight that killed the Hussein brothers has a positive impact on the morale of our troops. The regular flow of e-mails I have been able to read from a soldier in the 101st reveals this (anecdotally) at least to big a huge moral boost. He is embracing for retaliatory attacks but is in a much better mood.

I don't think that this will change the overall resentment or fear of long term American occupation, but it is a significant event and it will help allay the fears that Hussein might return to power.

It is something that could be used as momentum in improving the tone of the occupation. But the major problems of the occupation must be resolved.

We'll have to wait and see of course, the reaction to this by the Iraqi people.

My own guess is that it will increase resistance.

The fact that it took 6 hours to kill 2 politicians armed with what amounts to hand held weapons doesn't look good for the Army. At that, we had 4 injured.

If the resistance put up by these men is any indication of what may follow, we may be in trouble.

Welcome to America's Debate Ed.

All i have to say is that the reason it took 4 hours to finally end the thing is because there were other houses in the vincinty & unlike some other armies, we try to prevent collateral damage, which would make the Iraqis hate us more.

The resistance may increase slightly as a retalitory strike type thing because of this hit but it will decrease in the long-term

Welcome aboard, Ed!

One reason for the length was stated by GA. Another is that they initially tried to take them alive. Another is that they weren't going to take any chances with casualties...

Let's not quibble over the fact that they didn't storm in there guns a-blazing. It really isn't relevant.

EDIT: spelling.

I heard a retired Marine colonel say about the deaths of Saddam's sons, "Well, the world is a better place today and hell is a lot worse."

I'm not happy about their deaths, but I'm not not happy either. The question is will it make any difference in the current war of attrition going on in Iraq?

From today's news:

On Wednesday, a U.S. soldier was killed and six wounded in an attack on a convoy near Mosul, the military reported. On Tuesday night, a convoy was attacked in Ramadi, 60 miles west of the capital, killing one soldier and wounding two more.

The two deaths brought to 155 the number of American soldiers killed in action since the war began March 20, surpassing by eight the death toll in the 1991 Gulf War.

In western Iraq, several Iraqi insurgents, their faces covered and cradling rocket-propelled grenade launchers and automatic weapons, vowed to "raise hell" against the United States and Britain for the killing of Saddam's sons.

They also threatened to bring their fight to the countries of the coalition partners, as well as Israel.

"If this news is true that Odai and Qusai are dead, we shall raise hell on Americans," one of the unidentified men said in a videotape obtained by Associated Press Television News. "Even the unborn child will take revenge for Odai and Qusai."

And the madness drags on...

I discovered that in Saddams Iraq, practically anyone can purchase an AK 47 for $250 in one of the 65 gunshops in Baghdad. Similar weapons also for sale, freely.Taxi drivers have them in their fron tseats.

Talk about the right to bear arms! Here in NJ I can't even get a crry permit for a pistol.

This being the case, why wasn't Saddam blown away by a dissident/dissidents?

Could it be that what we are told about thse "scoundrels" is another pack of lies?

The responses by certain members of this thread show a lack of awareness of the complexity of contemporary Iraq, with a sprectum of political, tribal and religious factions developing their powerbases and armed militias in post-Saddam Iraq. Of course, the faction of ultra-loyalist Saddam fighters within the Sunni region around Baghdad will be demoralised by what it seems to be the death of Saddams two sons, but does this effect the rest of the anti-American guerrillas movement?
Furthermore, it would be naïve in the extreme to argue that only Saddam has the money reserves to fund the arms for the guerrillas. Th CBS report gained its contacts from the farmers from a Baghdad gun-dealer, showing that there is a vibrant black-market trade in arms. Arms dealers from presumably support these smuggling gangs and regional networks across the Middle East. It is easy for anybody with a little bit of money to buy arms in Iraq.
The Americans have caught Iranian intelligence agents in Shia southern Iraq, and there is much reported evidence of Iranian involvement in the radical wings of the religious Shia groupings. With some lading Shia, religious clerics calling for a Islamic Army, their funds will come from Iran. Syria, particularly the hard-line elements within the power-elite of the Ba’ath party there, probably support through funding and arms smuggling the activities of the Sunni Muslims guerrillas. Similarly in Saudi Arabia, the anti-American fundamentalist wing of the House of Saud may be supporting through their mammoth financial wealth certain non-Shia groups within Iraq – Saudi Arabia fears the Shia minority in their own country. Let us not forget Bin Ladens network, and the foreign Arab terrorists who are probably involved in post-war Iraqi politics.
In conclusion, the elimination of Saddam and his sons may demoralise and lesson the attacks of only one unpopular grouping within a whole sprectum of guerrillas and semi-guerrilla groups within Iraq. The only real way to end the attacks on American troops is to improve the socio-economic condition of the populace, ensure genuine independence for the new governing council, restore order and establish a clear timetable within the next year or two for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.
Otherwise, the attacks will continue, whether Bush likes it or not.

I think a key consideration here is that an Iraqi turned these guys in.

Once other Iraqis realize that they can squeal on their former regime (and live to spend the reward money) more will be willing to come forward and offer information.

There was $15 million on the head of each one of these guys.

I think the elimination of tweedle sick and sicker has sent an important message. The message is that we are there to uproot the remnants of the regime, install a constitutional democracy that won't be so easily swept away like the one we built in Germany after WWI, and move on.

Their death will have a significant long term impact.

The following points have been established:
1) Hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions, of dollars can't protect you from the long arm of America.
2) Hiding out amongst your own tribesmen can't protect you from the long arm of America.
3) When you're on our poopy list, American troops aren't going to take any additional risks to capture you. We find you, you'll die unless you're very, very peaceful.
4) Those who have constantly carped "where is Saddam, where are his sons?" as an indictment of America's competence are somewhat muted, which gives less hope to those opposing the occupation that the political landscape in America will shift enough to bring our lads home without finishing the job. The true fanatics will be undeterred, the pragmatists will reassess "is it worth the risk when the odds of success have dropped, and the odds of death have increased?" Added to this, there is the potential that less tolerance will be granted the fanatics by the Iraqis, making the fanatics easier to hunt down and kill.
5) The death of Saddam's sons will have an impact on other ME countries, most importantly Iran. It will encourage the pro-democratic elements.

From reading this thread, I get the impression that many of you are underestimating the importance of leadership and symbols. The "boys" were both leaders within the regime in their own right. If it had been Saddam and only one of the sons, then the other would serve as a potential rallying figure for the Baathists. Two of the three rallying figures have been removed, and their removal will make finding Saddam easier, since there's going to be less fear that whoever rolls over on Saddam will get whacked by the sons.

The other tyrants (the ayatollahs, anyone?) in the region are looking at this and realizing that hiding out when the Americans really come to town is a lot harder than it looks. Afghanistan is a somewhat different situation, with far fewer American troops on the ground. You can go to ground for a while, but staying down is tough...

Again, none of this is going to matter to the Islamofacist fanatics. The only way to reduce attacks by them is to kill them.

Yeah. If we had just decided "oh what the hay, let's just drop a MOAB on this house...", we'd be getting less cheers and more protests because of damaged property next door and possibly civilian casualites. That would really put us in dep dog doo


nighttimer:

I was watching Fox News and they were showing a video from a group who vowed vengence over the deaths of Uiday and Qusay. I did say that there would be retalitory strikes. There are some who still see Uiday & his bro as good guys (although i cannot see how)

Uday and Qusay were quite the party animals, by all reports, especially Uday. These guys probably partied down with them, and they might well have been the only parties the guys ever attended. Have you ever hung out with a jerk because he was fun after a few beers and some good tunes?

These men did deserve to die. But I have to agree with the posters on this thread who maintain that it is somehow sick to celebrate the snuffing of lives, evil or not. It makes us a little more like they were.

Hanging out with a 'jerk' and being anywhere near these two guys no matter how drunk you are or how good the 'tunes' is no comparison. Not even in jest.

It is even more naive to narrow the importance of these two thugs soley to money. Obviously, they can get money from other sources. Even from dear 'ol dad until he's toes up. But that's not the real importance. It's "the head of the snake". These guys can facilitate the big deals that get lots of arms to people wanting to resist. Heck, everybody already has an AK-47. But not everybody has mines, RPGs, and ammo. So, my point was that the flow of major offensive weapons to protect the entire country could have went through Saddam's regime. They will still get to people who want to resist via other means, but my bet is that it won't be at the rate of which Saddam and Co. can get them. And that makes our troops safer. So, me being vehemently against this war doesn't negate the risk our troops are exposed to. If it's choice between any one of our soldiers and Saddam and/or his family, regardless of why that choice has to be made in the first place, I'm choosing the safety of our troops. So yeah - I'm happy as hell that Saddam's sons are where they should be - the gates of hell.

Geez..I must be getting too cynical for my own good, but has anybody thought about this?

There were 200+ soldiers and a bunch of serious hardware (helicopters, etc) taking on 4 people in a house. One was a 14 year old.

I don't have any problem with that. Overwhelming force to defeat an enemy saves American lives. But, besides Saddam himself, who are the most important people that would have information on WMD's and terrorist connections?

The two guys they killed maybe? This wasn't a standoff with a few AK-47s and M-16s. They fired 10 TOW missiles in that building. They really, REALLY wanted them dead. And got their way. If they wanted them alive, they could've surrounded and waited them out. They knew who was in that building.

If there was enough reason to believe they could point out WMD existence or terrorists ties connections, why not make some effort to get them alive? Unless we already knew they couldn't have any information of any value?

Yeah, but did you see that building? Three stories I think and some awfully thick concrete walls. That was more more of a fortress than a house it looked like to me. A problem with the "wait them out" concept is that could have invited utter disaster. If word got out that the evil twins were under siege in that building, every terrorist in that part of the country would have shown up and started taking potshots at our troops. That would have turned a very dangerous situation into a potential disaster and likely ended up with more deaths on both sides. The "say boys" could have surrendered at any point, but they didn't. It was a pure military operation to achieve the mission objective with maximum efficiency. That means they went in hard and heavy.

How do you know it was just Ak's and M-16's? These guys, for 4 hours, fought for their lives. They probably had a few RPG's with grenades along with them.

Besides, i doubt they would tell us anything. They are Saddam's kids. You'd think they'd cough up the info?


Aquilla:



That's why they needed the TOW missile .




That and they would have probably escaped, inviting major hate towards us for letting them go & that would sink the morale of the troops and us here in the states to a new low.

Thus far the reports I have seen only detail the four as having a few hand grenates and their automatic weapons. I have seen no mention of RPGs or other artillery outside of that, though I suppose more information could later come out.

The pictures I have seen looks like a house rather than a fortress. It was two stories without many rooms, though a frontal view can be deceiving considering the large columns and overhang above the front door.


Four people -- one a cripple and the other a teenager -- would not have escaped from a house surrounded by some 200 soldiers supported by "heavy weaponry and assault helicopters."

Prior to use of the TOW missiles soldiers had already knocked in the front door, pulling back only after realizing access to the top floor was barricaded. The information that has currently been released doesn't seem to justify the artillery used if ever there had been any interest in capturing the Hussein brothers alive.