Saddams Sons

dathi1

Mike...you forgot the 14 year old kid they killed too. But he was just an AARab. Just like the dogs on the street they Kill them every day but it doesn't make Fox News coverage.

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
Mike...you forgot the 14 year old kid they killed too.

And you forgot that the kid shot at them first.

DriftingRain

Tsk tsk tsk....

The Corinthian

Killing Uday and Qusay Hussein was, in retrospect, unfortunate, as no amount of photographs will ever convince an increasingly sceptical and hostile Iraqi population that they have truly died. Of course, their death may have been unavoidable (and Uday was even reported to have committed suicide rather than face capture) and no speculation on our part is likely to change that.

The hypocrisy of displaying their corpses after the moral indignation drummed up by the coalition when POW’s were shown is self-evident. Even the US administration knows this and took care in deciding whether or not to show them in the first place. From their perspective, the fall out of such photographs is minimal compared to the benefit of showing the Iraqi population that Saddam’s regime will not return.

Unfortunately, despite the US administration’s assertion that eliminating Saddam and his immediate heirs will quell support for the ongoing resistance, it increasingly does not look like this will be the case. Increasing opposition and violence in the Shiite south is not connected to any Ba’athist influence and even within the so-called Sunni Triangle resistance has remained largely independent of Saddam's influence. The American-British occupation is highly unpopular as it is, and ironically removing the threat of the Hussein dynasty returning to power may actually rally support from those who would have balked at the thought of Saddam ever returning.





Edit: "popular" -> "unpopular"

Von

Originally posted by ReefBreak
In other words, whatever the US do, they'll be hated by the vocal European socialists.

Vocal European socialists like the Tony Blair led Labour government?

You silly.

dathi1

I'm just lookin at the new pictures of the bodies on Reuters Raw Video and I just don't get it. Apparently this is an exercise to convince Iraqis that they're dead. Don't get me wrong I believe it was them..but this looks more like the Roswell Alien autopsy. What are the yanks up too...are they really that dumb? Looking at them again they look now like brilliant fakes!

Xhen

There are a lot of brave Monday morning generals here directing operations from the safety of their home computers. It's a little different story when you're in a firefight and need to decide if you want to risk the lives of your soldiers in order to save the hides of a couple of murderous psychopaths. Personally I'd much rather see the torture twins end up on a slab than an American soldier so the commander on site made the right call as far as I'm concerned. Once they fired on American troops their fate was sealed.

For those of you making the usual dumb stereotypical criticism of American soldiers it's time for you to wise up and get over your silly biases.

http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/07/25/do2501.xml

Whether the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein were self-inflicted or not, the military operation to capture them was immaculate. There were no American deaths, 10 minutes of warnings were given over loudspeakers, and it was the Iraqis who opened fire. So sensitive was the American approach, they even rang the bell of the house before entering.

The neat operation fits squarely with the tenor of the whole American campaign, contrary to the popular negative depiction of its armed forces: that they are spoilt, well-equipped, steroid-pumped, crudely patriotic yokels who are trigger-happy yet cowardly in their application of overwhelming force.

And, unlike our chaps, none of them is supposed to have the slightest clue about Northern Ireland-style "peacekeeping": never leaving their vehicles to go on foot patrols, never attempting to win hearts and minds by engaging with local communities and, of course, never removing their helmets, sunglasses and body armour to appear more human.

As a British journalist working for an American newspaper, who was embedded with American troops before, during and after the conquest of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I know this is all way off the mark; a collection of myths coloured by prejudice, fed by Hollywood's tendentious depictions of Vietnam (fought by a very different US Army to today's) and by memories of the Second World War.

The American soldiers I met were disciplined professionals. Many of them had extensive experience of peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia and had worked alongside (or even been trained by) British troops. Thoughtful, mature for their years, and astonishingly racially integrated, they bore little resemblance to the disgruntled draftees in Platoon or Apocalypse Now.

Sparks

There are a lot of brave Monday morning generals here directing operations from the safety of their home computers.

These "monday morning generals" were screaming on friday night not to play the game at all Xhen.
So try not to be so snide, would you?
Especially not when it turns out that we were right...

It's a little different story when you're in a firefight and need to decide if you want to risk the lives of your soldiers in order to save the hides of a couple of murderous psychopaths.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/resetcookie/front.htm

200 marines, humvees with mounted TOWs, and apache attack helos versus a 14-year-old and three grown men, one of whom was in a wheelchair.

Yeah, that's a pretty serious threat. So serious in fact, that Odai (the one in the wheelchair) had to be beaten to death with a blunt instrument (like a rifle butt) and qusai had to be shot twice behind the ear at close range.

Why is my brain thinking back to the stories of Jessica Lynch's brave battle with her captors, where she fought to the last bullet, enduring bullet wounds and stab wounds, before being brutally dragged off into captivity by big ugly Iraqis who then tied her to a hospital bed and tortured her?
:rolleyes:

For those of you making the usual dumb stereotypical criticism of American soldiers it's time for you to wise up and get over your silly biases.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/943255.asp?0cl=c1

“The whole operation was a cockup,” said a British intelligence officer. “There was no need to go after four lightly armed men with such overwhelming firepower. They would have been much more useful alive.”

And that's just this operation - the comments from professional british soldiers in the field have been consistenly damning of the standard of US troop training, expertise and attitude.

Turnip

Originally posted by Xhen
There are a lot of brave Monday morning generals here directing operations from the safety of their home computers.

So what? Everyone's entitled to comment one way or the other on what happened.

It's a little different story when you're in a firefight and need to decide if you want to risk the lives of your soldiers in order to save the hides of a couple of murderous psychopaths.

Actually, considering how valuable they would have been in terms of intelligence and propaganda if they'd been taken alive, quite a few troops should have been made expendable. That's what soldiers are paid for after all. Even my mum who has minimal knowledge of military matters said this. To say that a Guatemalan immigrant grunt's life is worth more than the lives of two of the most wanted men in the world, whose capture could save many more lives in the future, does not make much sense.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
These "monday morning generals" were screaming on friday night not to play the game at all

What? You would have left Uday and Qusay go?

200 marines, humvees with mounted TOWs, and apache attack helos versus a 14-year-old and three grown men, one of whom was in a wheelchair.

Yeah, that's a pretty serious threat.

Serious enough to wound 4 US soldiers.

And that's just this operation - the comments from professional british soldiers in the field have been consistenly damning of the standard of US troop training, expertise and attitude.

So if the American army is so bad, how come they've just won one of the fastest military victories in history? Most wars last a bit longer than three weeks, you know.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Meh
So if the American army is so bad, how come they've just won one of the fastest military victories in history? Most wars last a bit longer than three weeks, you know.

I won’t comment on the level of US troop training, expertise and attitude, however it cannot be denied that the speed of the Coalition’s initial victory was almost entirely down to overwhelming airpower and technological superiority. Or as I was recently reminded, Hilaire Belloc once wrote:

“Whatever happens we have got
The Maxim Gun and they have not”

Thus the quality of US ground troops was of minimal importance given the huge tactical advantages afforded to them by superior technology, and the speed of the victory in the conventional war would be a poor metre for the measurement of US troop quality.

While this victory over conventional forces was overwhelming, it remains to be seen whether the US will have similar success against the ongoing resistance campaign (after all she didn’t in other fields of combat). What strikes me is that the capture or assassination of Saddam and his heirs is being billed as some sort of magic bullet by the present US administration - that their elimination would somehow cause the collapse of all resistance against the Coalition. This is an assumption that is arguable to say the least, but is in fairness off topic.

Sparks

What? You would have left Uday and Qusay go?

*sigh*
Nice to see you're reading my posts these days Meh.
Don't be assinine. Of course I wouldn't have let them go. But as I've said before, watching Bush vs. Saddam is like watching Operation Barbarossa - there aren't good guys to cheer for.
When I say "don't play the game" I mean "don't invade Iraq".
Though you'd never have known that from reading my posts over the past few months... :rolleyes:

Serious enough to wound 4 US soldiers.

What, a soldier got wounded? Wow. Never heard of that happening before. I mean, who'd have thought that being a soldier would have meant being shot at?
Pah.
Point stands. They weren't a serious threat. And that's the professional opinion of soldiers on the ground in Iraq, not mine.

So if the American army is so bad, how come they've just won one of the fastest military victories in history? Most wars last a bit longer than three weeks, you know.

I think the better question is:
Why did it take the most technologically advanced and (allegedly) well-trained army in the world so long to overrun a conscripted army that had been under sanctions for 12 years and whose most advanced weaponry was twenty years old?
Military victory my eyeball. Tie a twelve-year-olds arms behind his back and I could beat him up - it doesn't make it a textbook military victory.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
What, a soldier got wounded? Wow. Never heard of that happening before. I mean, who'd have thought that being a soldier would have meant being shot at?
Pah.
Point stands. They weren't a serious threat.

They were a serious enough threat to wound four Americans. That's pretty serious. And if the American's hadn't stood off and let the air support handle it, there would almost certainly have been a few dead Americans to add to the wounded.

And that's the professional opinion of soldiers on the ground in Iraq, not mine.

Which professional soldiers? Some unnamed British intelligence officer sitting in an armchair in MI6 headquarters isn't a "professional soldier on the ground".

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Meh
Some unnamed British intelligence officer sitting in an armchair in MI6 headquarters isn't a "professional soldier on the ground".

Which bit of the article said that the British intelligence officer was sitting in an armchair in MI6 headquarters?

Meh

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Which bit of the article said that the British intelligence officer was sitting in an armchair in MI6 headquarters?

A little poetic license there. My point was that if it's not mentioned in the article, he/she probably isn't on the ground in Iraq.

Sparks

They were a serious enough threat to wound four Americans. That's pretty serious. And if the American's hadn't stood off and let the air support handle it, there would almost certainly have been a few dead Americans to add to the wounded.

Meh, I could injure four americans, given half a chance. It doesn't make me a threat.
Fact is, had they wanted to capture them, they could have done so easily. In fact the nature of the injuries on the bodies strongly suggests that that's exactly what happened.

Which professional soldiers? Some unnamed British intelligence officer sitting in an armchair in MI6 headquarters isn't a "professional soldier on the ground".

Damn TC beat me to it.
Mind you, he didn't remind you of the opinions expressed about the US forces by the UK forces for the past few months...

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Meh, I could injure four americans, given half a chance. It doesn't make me a threat.

Yes it does. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=threat

Originally posted by Sparks
Meh, I could injure four americans, given half a chance. It doesn't make me a threat.

With Respect, could you expand on how injuring four american soldiers, would not make you a threat, to them and their colleagues??
If you deliberately injured me, I'd consider you a threat and call the Guards immediately!
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Meh
A little poetic license there.

You mean you made it up.

My point was that if it's not mentioned in the article, he/she probably isn't on the ground in Iraq.

I think it would be far too sweeping an assumption to make, in fairness. Of course, a stronger argument you could use would be that British Intelligence sources should be treated with scepticism following some of their other assessments, such as the Iraq-Uranium claims...

Sparks

Meh,

Yes it does.

Man,

With Respect, could you expand on how injuring four american soldiers, would not make you a threat, to them and their colleagues??
If you deliberately injured me, I'd consider you a threat and call the Guards immediately!

Point is guys, I might be a threat to one, or two unarmed marines.
But 200 armed marines with heavy machine guns, TOWs on armoured Humvees and close-air support from Apache gunships?
Last time I checked, I wasn't a killer robot from the future, y'know... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sparks
Point is guys, I might be a threat to one, or two unarmed marines.
But 200 armed marines with heavy machine guns, TOWs on armoured Humvees and close-air support from Apache gunships?
Last time I checked, I wasn't a killer robot from the future, y'know... :rolleyes:

And no U.S soldier got killed, sparks in the operation, just four injured.
What else would all that back up be doing anyway at the time other than being around for the potential capture of two of the biggest faces on the U.S deck of cards.
Fact is, the guys inside the house were lunatic's who would have shot as many U.S soldiers as possible, and were clearly mad enough not to want to surrender.
God knows what they might have had up their sleeves for those that surrounded them...
A little overkill ( pardon the pun ) in the circumstances wasn't a bad plan by the U.S forces, when they would have wanted to minimise casualties on their own side.
mm

Sparks

Man, if they were such a threat and the US guys couldn't capture them alive, why do the autopsy reports strongly suggest that they were killed after being captured???

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Man, if they were such a threat and the US guys couldn't capture them alive, why do the autopsy reports strongly suggest that they were killed after being captured???

I haven't read the autopsy reports. Have you got a link?

Sparks

Closest I have so far Meh, is the Post's quoting of the reports, which I posted further back up the thread.
Uday was killed by blunt force trauma to the head, Quasay had two bullet wounds behind the right ear.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Closest I have so far Meh, is the Post's quoting of the reports, which I posted further back up the thread.
Uday was killed by blunt force trauma to the head, Quasay had two bullet wounds behind the right ear.

Well, if there are no public autopsy reports yet, we're just speculating idly. How about we adjourn this debate until they are released?

Sparks

How long do you think that'll take then?
Hell, there are files from the JFK assassination that are still classified... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Meh
Well, if there are no public autopsy reports yet, we're just speculating idly. How about we adjourn this debate until they are released?

Oh, I don’t know - you were happy enough to use poetic license earlier when it suited your argument... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sparks
Closest I have so far Meh, is the Post's quoting of the reports, which I posted further back up the thread.
Uday was killed by blunt force trauma to the head, Quasay had two bullet wounds behind the right ear.

Even if that were true, we don't know what he was doing, before he got that blunt force trauma to the head ( if indeed that is the case) , he may have had his finger on a trigger at the time.
See I can speculate too:rolleyes:
mm

Sparks

Man, the rules say that in that situation you shoot the person in the centre of mass. Not walk over to them and beat them in the head with a rifle butt...

Meh

Originally posted by Man
Even if that were true, we don't know what he was doing, before he got that blunt force trauma to the head ( if indeed that is the case) , he may have had his finger on a trigger at the time.

Or he could have been hit by some falling debris due to all those TOW missiles. We just don't know, and any accusations that the US troops murdered them in cold blood are just speculation at this stage.