[grampster]

When I heard shortly after it happended that the Hussein kiddies were scragged by our military I told my wife to watch for the following from the Dems and the media:
1. Why did we need 200 to catch 4, not fair to send so many against so few.
2. Why did we kill them when we should have captured them.
3. Why did it take so long? (6 hours)
4. Its really not them.
5. Boy are we in trouble now 'cause Sadaam is going to be ticked off.
6. Why didn't we catch Saddam too? and Usama thrown in.
7. Yea, but where are the WMD's?
8. Oh yea, don't forget....Bush lied about the WMD and the uranium, he's probably is lying about this too.


So far, I have heard all of the above either on CNN or the radio or in the newpapers and its only Thursday the 24th at 3PM.

grampster:banghead:

[DaveB]

Yes, it's very silly.

Please to answer #2 - (Why did we kill them when we should have captured them?)

Didn't it occur to anybody in authority that they had information - possibly available nowhere else?

db

[grampster]

They were barricaded with much weaponry in a large house. Not smart to walk in and ask them to give up. (Actually, troops tried twice to get them to surrender and we got 4 wounded GI's for our trouble.) If we laid siege to the place, would allow too much time for local fanatic ijits to start making trouble. Troops did the right thing. Dead, they are out of the way and a symbol of the end of Baathist terror. Alive they become symbols and the Libs of the world would do everything they could to "save the poor souls, who were infested by their father, because it really wasn't their fault". As far as inelligence goes, they would not give up anything of value anyway. We have lists, computers, phones, cash etc and will learn as much from that as from those two.

[Leatherneck]

Right on the mark, Gramps. Don't expect 200 soldiers to take fire from a house and fall back to negotiate these days. Not when there are Hellfire/TOW missiles available. :D

TC
TFL Survivor

[Byron Quick]

Please to answer #2 - (Why did we kill them when we should have captured them?)Didn't it occur to anybody in authority that they had information - possibly available nowhere else?



Sure it occurred to people in authority that they had such intelligence. However, after consideration, the rules of engagement for the top leadership (the deck of cards) was: kill or capture. The people in authority decided rightly to allow surrender but not to unnecessarily risk American soldiers against a resisting target.

Four Americans were wounded trying to close and capture the Husseins before the TOW's were used. Think the commander on the ground should have risked more soldiers trying to capture? Trying a siege to starve them out would have risked his command being attacked from outside of its perimeter by others. Do you think this would have been wise?

He did the right thing: give up or die...and gave them about 6 hours to shoot and think about it before the missiles were used.

Oh, another thing...LOTS of things would be nice to have happen. Doesn't mean that they are necessarily realistic or practical.

[pingdashf]

On the point of capture vs. kill... we are talking about two of the most wanted men in the world, we could have afforded moving a significant number of troops into the area to secure it and starve them out.

Granted, if we had done so Bush would be branded a war criminal for allowing his army to use starvation as a weapon. :)

[Gordon Fink]

1. Why did we need 200 to catch 4, not fair to send so many against so few?

Yes, why did we need a quarter-million troops, if we really just wanted to get rid of Saddam and his cronies? We must have wanted to control something.…

2. Why did we kill them when we should have captured them?

Capturing them would have been nice, but killing them works just as well.

3. Why did it take so long? (6 hours)

Capturing them would have been nice.…

4. It’s really not them.

Maybe not. The G. W. Bush administration has already treated us to a series of false positives, but Saddam and his cronies are inconsequential.

5. Boy are we in trouble now ’cause Sadaam is going to be ticked off.

Saddam and his cronies are inconsequential and have been since 1991.

6. Why didn’t we catch Saddam too? and Usama thrown in.

Saddam and his cronies are inconsequential. We’re in control now. Usama who?

7. Yea, but where are the WMD's?

We’re still looking! Maybe we’ll find some moldering mustard gas one of these days. Maybe we won’t. It can be difficult finding something that you may already have destroyed years ago, don’t you know? But we’re in control now, so don’t you worry!

8. Oh yea, don’t forget … Bush lied about the WMD and the uranium, he’s probably is lying about this too.

Doubtful, but there’s a very good chance he’s being duped just like the rest of the American people.

~G. Fink

[Khornet]

It was MURDER. ASSASINATION. Don't believe me? Ask Charlie Rangel. Ask the Associated Press:

"In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-tanding policy banning political assasination. It was the misfortune of Sadddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, thet the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition."

Even if the sons opened fire first. Even if the attempt was made to capture them alive.

How did that Sat. Night Live parody of Helen Thomas go? Something like
"Mr. Secretary, (Rumsfeld) if the Taliban shoot at our soldiers, but miss, isn't it unfair for the Americans to shoot back?"

[bountyhunter]

"In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-tanding policy banning political assasination. It was the misfortune of Sadddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, thet the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition."

Perhaps, but Bush can get around that law by claiming that the Hussein's were "leading" the continued resistance movement which poses a threat to US forces which gives them the right to kill them. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, the point is it would definitely fly. If and when they slaughter Saddam, watch and see if that is what they trot out to silence the critics.

[Standing Wolf]

Howie Dean loses two of his esteemed supporters.

[Byron Quick]

Perhaps, but Bush can get around that law by claiming that the Hussein's were "leading" the continued resistance movement which poses a threat to US forces which gives them the right to kill them.

It's not a law...it's an executive order. Bush can extinguish it, change it, modify, or suspend it on a case by case basis with another executive order.

I'm not sure he even has to make the executive order doing this public.

[JDSlack]

I was wondering why they didn't fly Pelosi, Daschle, Schumer and Hillary in and send them in the front door to negotiate. I would have included Kennedy, but I think he exceeds the load capacity of a C-17.