PDA

View Full Version : Saddam's sons dead.


macfan
Jul 22, 2003, 02:50 PM
A good start. Now find the father, too.

Front page, CNN. (http://www.cnn.com)

MrMacMan
Jul 22, 2003, 02:56 PM
Um maybe now we can get the person we went into iraq for?

Saddam Hussein.

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by macfan
A good start.

kudos to the 101st airborne.

macfan
Jul 22, 2003, 03:00 PM
Silly me. I thought this was a current event!

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Silly me. I thought this was a current event!

did it get moved?

JohnMBA
Jul 22, 2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by macfan
A good start. Now find the father, too.

Front page, CNN. (http://www.cnn.com)

Perhaps liberals will hold requiems tonight in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Boston.

Wouldn't candlelight vigils be a sensitive and thoughtful thing for Democrats to do . . .

After all, Uday and Qusai and the rest of the thugs all hated Bush just as much as liberals do.

Rower_CPU
Jul 22, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Silly me. I thought this was a current event!

Yes, a political one.

macfan
Jul 22, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
did it get moved?

Yeah. I put it in current events because it was breaking news, but it was moved here. I don't have a problem with that. It was a toss up for me.

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Yeah. I put it in current events because it was breaking news, but it was moved here. I don't have a problem with that. It was a toss up for me.

i believe the political-ness of it out-trumps the current-event-ness and the posting-a-link-ness (as required in C.E.).

3rdpath
Jul 22, 2003, 03:37 PM
wow...this is major.

and they implied it happened because of the bounty..b2tm, you were right.

Backtothemac
Jul 22, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
wow...this is major.

and they implied it happened because of the bounty..b2tm, you were right.

Thank you sir. ;)

I can say that 15 million dollars, plus refuge in the US would be pretty good motivation for anyone.

Daddy will be found, so will UBL. It just takes time.

MrMacMan
Jul 22, 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by JohnMBA
Perhaps liberals will hold requiems tonight in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Boston.

Wouldn't candlelight vigils be a sensitive and thoughtful thing for Democrats to do . . .

After all, Uday and Qusai and the rest of the thugs all hated Bush just as much as liberals do.

I would respond to you, but I noticed you are banned.

Since when are liberals categorized as ruthless killers?


Anyway if the bounty worked good for that.

We still need Hussein

Sun Baked
Jul 22, 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Yeah. I put it in current events because it was breaking news, but it was moved here. I don't have a problem with that. It was a toss up for me. The last couple semi-political current events still got attacked in the current events section, it's probably easier to keep em all in the politics section.

---

Anyway's I though there was some worry that the sons would be left in charge. And they were some evil human beings.

Taking out the sons removes that threat.

pseudobrit
Jul 22, 2003, 06:01 PM
While I can't say I'll shed any tears for either one, I have to ask:

what did these men ever do to the USA?

Backtothemac
Jul 22, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
While I can't say I'll shed any tears for either one, I have to ask:

what did these men ever do to the USA?

Well Uday was in charge of tourturing out troops during the first gulf war.

It isn't so much what he did to us, but what he did to his own people.

pseudobrit
Jul 22, 2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well Uday was in charge of tourturing out troops during the first gulf war.

It isn't so much what he did to us, but what he did to his own people.

And that's utterly horrible, but they are soldiers in battle. Soldiers are always at high risk of torture/mistreatment; that's a fact of war. Bush I knew that when he committed them to it.

But we're over there because of 9/11. Bush has said so. What did either of them do to the US population? They weren't involved in 9/11.

pseudobrit
Jul 22, 2003, 06:13 PM
I guess the best way to sum up how I feel is that celebrating their deaths is celebrating a hollow victory. It means little.

They're not Saddam, they're not bin Laden, and they're not enemies of the USA.

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

It isn't so much what he did to us, but what he did to his own people.

according to ABCNews, he had members of the iraqi olympic team tortured for not winning.

what's important to me is that the two of them are no longer on the loose. i'd prefer that they'd have been captured and tried, and i don't agree that they were worth going to war over, but if they got killed in a military action... oh well.

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 06:19 PM
btw -- from a strategic standpoint, how stupid was it to have those two together at the same time/place?

i would have thought that they and their father would always be in 3 separate locations.

macfan
Jul 22, 2003, 06:19 PM
pseudobrit,
So, since "Bush I knew that when he committed them to it," you're saying it's his fault that POWs were tortured under the orders of one of Saddam's sons? That's an interesting arugment. You also seem to be saying that torturing a captured soldier is fair game since they are "soldiers in battle." Also an interesting argument. Can't say that I agree with it, however.

They were enemies of the United States. It seems amazing that one would think otherwise.

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
So, since "Bush I knew that when he committed them to it," you're saying it's his fault that POWs were tortured under the orders of one of Saddam's sons? That's an interesting arugment. You also seem to be saying that torturing a captured soldier is fair game since they are "soldiers in battle." Also an interesting argument. Can't say that I agree with it, however.

They were enemies of the United States. It seems amazing that one would think otherwise.

torture is against the geneva convention. but pbrit is right when he says that the first bush adminstration would know that the iraqis would probably torture any POWs.

before we get too self-righteous about that, remember that many prisoners from the afghanistan action were sent to other countries (including guantanamo bay) to be tortured. it works both ways, and both ways stink.

pseudobrit
Jul 22, 2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
So, since "Bush I knew that when he committed them to it," you're saying it's his fault that POWs were tortured under the orders of one of Saddam's sons? That's an interesting arugment. You also seem to be saying that torturing a captured soldier is fair game since they are "soldiers in battle." Also an interesting argument. Can't say that I agree with it, however.

It's a reality of war, not an argument. I'm not being cavalier about it, it's just the way things are. Bush knew it would happen. The soldiers knew it could when they signed up. Clinton knew it would happen if Somalians got out of hand.

They were enemies of the United States. It seems amazing that one would think otherwise.

There's a distinction here that I was careful to make: they may have considered the US their enemy but they were in no way enemies of the US. They never did anything offensive against my country.

Ugg
Jul 22, 2003, 07:31 PM
As a bleeding heart liberal, I am glad to announce that I am happy to hear of his sons' demise. They were nasty characters by anyone's definition and terrorized the Iraqis in ways that make Idi Amin seem a downright softie. Much of the Iraqi ambivalence regarding the US presence in their country has been reported to be based upon the fear of Saddam, his sons and henchmen returning to power. Whether this will translate into more cooperation with the occupiers remains to be seen. I'm sure that few outside of their family will truly mourn their passing.

Das
Jul 22, 2003, 08:41 PM
So wait, they got them at their Dad's cousin's house? Isn't that like one of the first places we should have looked/bombed? I mean, it's not like it's some hole in the desert.

Anyhoo, they will be missed for their gentle voices and puppy dog hugs. It is truly a sad day for Hell, now they have two more to clog the bathroom sink with mustache trimmings.

NavyIntel007
Jul 22, 2003, 08:48 PM
pseudobrit... you complain about the "bad treatment" that the terrorists in GITMO are supposedly getting however we're suppose to be ready to get tortured. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. These guys were horrible people. They would kill you and your family if you looked at them wrong. Although I cannot truthfully throw a party over another man's death, I think we can all agree that this development is two steps closer to ending this thing and getting our boys home... or moving them to liberia.

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Das
So wait, they got them at their Dad's cousin's house? Isn't that like one of the first places we should have looked/bombed?

lol

i wasn't aware that's where they were. there's a lot of comedic potential here.

"what? they've been in the back of our jeep the whole time?"

"ohhhhh! they were BEHIND the kicked open door!"

"you mean those WEREN'T mannequins in the shop window?"

Sayhey
Jul 22, 2003, 09:51 PM
Always thought the "Mussolini solution" (aka turn them over to the Iraqis for justice) would have been the best way to deal with them and Saddam. Won't celebrate, but wouldn't be bothered if Iraqis did.

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 10:07 PM
i'm learning that there were 4 people in the house, the two hussein sons included. they put up "fierce resistance" for four hours, against:


an Apache helicopter fired an antitank TOW missile that shredded a large portion of the complex, the sources said.

Task Force 20 -- a military unit formed to hunt for Saddam and his top supporters -- led the raid Tuesday morning, U.S. officials said. That unit was backed by 200 troops from the Army's 101st Airborne Division, along with other Special Forces and air cover, officials said.


link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/22/sprj.irq.sons/index.html)

pseudobrit
Jul 22, 2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
pseudobrit... you complain about the "bad treatment" that the terrorists in GITMO are supposedly getting however we're suppose to be ready to get tortured. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. These guys were horrible people. They would kill you and your family if you looked at them wrong. Although I cannot truthfully throw a party over another man's death, I think we can all agree that this development is two steps closer to ending this thing and getting our boys home... or moving them to liberia.

The thing is that we're supposed to be above their level. Just because Iraqis did it to us doesn't mean we should do it to the people in Guantanamo. The other problem is that the prisoners in Guantanamo are not soldiers.

I'm not saying it's okay for our troops to be tortured, so don't make it seem like I said or implied that.

Troops should be ready for capture and torture simply because it's a reality of war. Should we not condition police to use their weapons because criminals should never threaten a cop?

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 12:13 AM
zimv20,
Why do you seek to find reasons to be critical of the care that the military took to avoid pointless casualties among themselves and Iraqi civilians?

psedobrit,
Are you sayint that western culture and values are superior to Arab culture and values? Why should we be above them or they be beneath us?

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,
Why do you seek to find reasons to be critical of the care that the military took to avoid pointless casualties among themselves and Iraqi civilians?


i didn't intend to imply i was being critical. i found it interesting (or even amazing) that it took 200+ special forces with air support to take out 4 iraqis, one of whom was 14 years old. by some accounts it took 4 hours, by others, 6.

i'm led to two thoughts:

1. are the iraqis really that tough, or
2. is there something else going on that wasn't reported?

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i didn't intend to imply i was being critical. i found it interesting (or even amazing) that it took 200+ special forces with air support to take out 4 iraqis, one of whom was 14 years old. by some accounts it took 4 hours, by others, 6.

i'm led to two thoughts:

1. are the iraqis really that tough, or
2. is there something else going on that wasn't reported?

By using a larger force, they were able to secure the area and keep innocent civilians safe, plus, you don't what the principals to slip out the back door!

There may have been more than four people in the house, and it might have simply been a case of being in control of the situation and not wanting to do any more damage that absolutely necessary. They even had more air support standing off and ready that wasn't used. One guy, or a couple of guys, barricaded in a relatively secure area can hold off a larger force for quite a while, particularly if that force has time on its side, and has no desire to end the standoff quickly.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 12:26 AM
so it doesn't strike you as odd AT ALL?

Pinto
Jul 23, 2003, 12:33 AM
These 2 rapists and torturers will certainly not be missed by anyone.

The amount of overkill used though is no great surprise, the US said that the younger son was in charge of the hiding of WOMD.

His vapourisation means he cannot be questioned about them and so cannot confirm that they don't exist.

If they really beleived they did exist, I'm sure they would have gone to great lengths to capture him alive.

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
so it doesn't strike you as odd AT ALL?

Not really very odd, since they would have no way of knowing for sure how many people were in the compound. Better to use the Powell Doctrine than to try to use the smallest number of men required. Also, I doubt if all 200 were heavily engaged in the firefight while it was ongoing.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Not really very odd, since they would have no way of knowing for sure how many people were in the compound. Better to use the Powell Doctrine than to try to use the smallest number of men required. Also, I doubt if all 200 were heavily engaged in the firefight while it was ongoing.

i'm not disputing sending that many. it's been reported that a small contingent first approached the house (knocked on the door?) and took some small arms fire before calling in reinforcements.

so we've got 4 iraqis w/, what, pistols and maybe rifles, outmanned 50+ to 1, outgunned by tank missiles and helicopters, then 4 to 6 hours of a "fierce gunfight."

something's missing.

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i'm not disputing sending that many. it's been reported that a small contingent first approached the house (knocked on the door?) and took some small arms fire before calling in reinforcements.

so we've got 4 iraqis w/, what, pistols and maybe rifles, outmanned 50+ to 1, outgunned by tank missiles and helicopters, then 4 to 6 hours of a "fierce gunfight."

something's missing.

Something might be missing. It's possible that some people were taken alive and are being questioned for intelligence. It's also possible that more than four were killed, and they just took out four bodies.

Pinto,
First, saying that the US used "overkill" in the raid just isn't true. Second, if they wanted to vaporize him, they would have called in the bunker busters.

GeeYouEye
Jul 23, 2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
so it doesn't strike you as odd AT ALL?

Strikes me as saying they were trying to capture them, and once they realized that wouldn't be possible, blew them to Hell. However, the likely media reaction to such a statement would be questioning why the capture failed, so it's a smart political move to just call it a long firefight.

Heck, for all we know, the shots that killed them could have been accidental; an "aim for the arm, hit the torso" kinda deal.

Either way, whatever death they got was far too good for them; they should have been killed in the same ways some of their victims were, perhaps stretched by trucks pulling in opposite directions, or put into industrial strength plastic shredders, or being tied down and fed to rats, or...

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Strikes me as saying they were trying to capture them, and once they realized that wouldn't be possible, blew them to Hell.

okay, that makes more sense. it's reasonable that the military et. al. would want them alive.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by macfan
It's also possible that more than four were killed, and they just took out four bodies.


that would help explain it. earlier reports had more iraqis involved, but later ones report four.

we need more info.

hvfsl
Jul 23, 2003, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by Pinto
These 2 rapists and torturers will certainly not be missed by anyone.

The amount of overkill used though is no great surprise, the US said that the younger son was in charge of the hiding of WOMD.

His vapourisation means he cannot be questioned about them and so cannot confirm that they don't exist.

If they really beleived they did exist, I'm sure they would have gone to great lengths to capture him alive.

WMD does excist, the US,UK,France and Russia sold it to him, that is how they know it excists, they know how much they sold him, how much Sadam used and how much the allies destroyed pre Iraq war 2. So they know he still has them.

Anyway things are very different when your life is on the line, there are very few people that would give their lives for it and I doubt it was worth risking US soldiers to try and capture the brothers just to prove to the public what gov already knows. Are you saying you would have risked your life to go in their to capture him. You don't seem to have any idea about war or what it is like out there.

hvfsl
Jul 23, 2003, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i'm not disputing sending that many. it's been reported that a small contingent first approached the house (knocked on the door?) and took some small arms fire before calling in reinforcements.

so we've got 4 iraqis w/, what, pistols and maybe rifles, outmanned 50+ to 1, outgunned by tank missiles and helicopters, then 4 to 6 hours of a "fierce gunfight."

something's missing.

Theres no problem with that, the more you outnumber the enermy, the less likely you are to have causulties and remember they did not want them to escape.

caveman_uk
Jul 23, 2003, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by hvfsl
WMD does excist, the US,UK,France and Russia sold it to him, that is how they know it excists, they know how much they sold him, how much Sadam used and how much the allies destroyed pre Iraq war 2. So they know he still has them.

The main problem with the 'we know he has them 'cos we sold him them' argument forgets that most chemical weapons have a very limited shelflife (max about 6 years apparently) so any he had prior to Gulf War One would be useless by now anyway. That shelf-life assumes that they are made in tip-top conditions. Iraq if it was still making them would most likely be doing it on a makeshift basis as a more permanent facility would have been spotted by the overflights. Chemical weapons made in this way have a much shorter shelf life - just weeks in fact. Iraq's weapons programme (if it had one) would have been more of a make-it-and-use-it type rather than a make-it-and-stockpile-it set up.

Edge100
Jul 23, 2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Pinto
the US said that the younger son was in charge of the hiding of WOMD.


Oh no, now they'll never find the nukes!


For what it's worth...

Since when did the death of a human being become great news? Granted, these two were not the best people in the world, but when you have Wolf Blitzer on CNN saying "Yup. Its good news! They're dead!"...well I think theres something wrong there.

Maybe they needed to be killed, maybe Saddam does too (although I cant really see why that is the business of the USA!), but this celebratory attitude that seems to be coming over the mass media (and some of the posters here!) is repugnant!

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 10:20 AM
Edge100,
You're right. There is something wrong there. However, what's wrong is that the deaths of those two deserve to be celebrated because the evil they brought to the Iraqi people, and its always bad when someone's death must be seen as a something worth celebrating. The human part of them died a long time ago.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by macfan
The human part of them died a long time ago.

THAT'S why it took over four hours -- the special forces were fighting robots!

:-)

Sayhey
Jul 23, 2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Edge100
Oh no, now they'll never find the nukes!


For what it's worth...

Since when did the death of a human being become great news? Granted, these two were not the best people in the world, but when you have Wolf Blitzer on CNN saying "Yup. Its good news! They're dead!"...well I think theres something wrong there.

Maybe they needed to be killed, maybe Saddam does too (although I cant really see why that is the business of the USA!), but this celebratory attitude that seems to be coming over the mass media (and some of the posters here!) is repugnant!

It's a rite as old as the celebration of the taking of heads or scalps. Those who think our media and government are so far removed from those types of celebrations just have watch the statements of the goverment/military officials and the crowing of the media.

I have no problem with Iraqis celebrating these deaths, but one would expect a more restrained response from those in the bureaucracy and "enlightened" reporters.

pseudobrit
Jul 23, 2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by macfan
psedobrit,
Are you sayint that western culture and values are superior to Arab culture and values? Why should we be above them or they be beneath us?

I said nothing of the sort. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

IJ Reilly
Jul 23, 2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Edge100,
You're right. There is something wrong there. However, what's wrong is that the deaths of those two deserve to be celebrated because the evil they brought to the Iraqi people, and its always bad when someone's death must be seen as a something worth celebrating. The human part of them died a long time ago.

I think you misunderstood his criticism, which it seems to me was directed at some members of the media who seemed to be engaging in cheerleading.

katchow
Jul 23, 2003, 11:32 AM
i can't say that i have much remorse for the death of a coupla thugs, but...

the thing that troubles me is how this will work to Bush's favor...now we can re-open the discussion about the horrors of Saddam, his sons, and the iraqi people...instead of focusing on the real issue...the war was sold on the notion of threating WMD's...where the heck are they? anothing thing that bugs me is the shift from "they have WMD's" to "well, we know they really wanted to have WMD's"

is it me or were people fussing more about lewenski/clinton than they are about the presidents credibility concerning this war?

Edge100
Jul 23, 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by katchow
i can't say that i have much remorse for the death of a coupla thugs, but...

the thing that troubles me is how this will work to Bush's favor...now we can re-open the discussion about the horrors of Saddam, his sons, and the iraqi people...instead of focusing on the real issue...the war was sold on the notion of threating WMD's...where the heck are they? anothing thing that bugs me is the shift from "they have WMD's" to "well, we know they really wanted to have WMD's"

is it me or were people fussing more about lewenski/clinton than they are about the presidents credibility concerning this war?

Precisely!

I have no problem with a war that stops a REAL threat. As much as the killing and all the things that go with war are awful, a country does have a right do defend itself from attacks. However, there is (to my eyes anyway) very little evidence that Iraq posed such a threat.

You have to keep in mind what Bush et al have said to justify all of this:

First, it was (to paraphrase) "We need to protect the US from another 9/11, and Iraq has WMD, so we're going to war."

Then, when the war was still going on (as if it ever stopped!), it changed to "We are liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam."

And now, seeing that the Iraqi's dont really want US troops in their country after all, its gone to "We're certain that Saddam was trying to obtain WMD, and we needed to prevent this, so we went to war."

Which is it, guys?

At least the little Afghanistan war had a point: to find Osama and company. This Iraq thing was just the son finishing the father's leftovers.

If the White House was to come out tomorrow and show some documents that PROVED Saddam had WMD (or would have had them very soon), I would say "Ok, the US was under a direct threat. War sucks, but I can justify this one." But where is this proof? I understand that some info is classified, but certainly some of it can be used to show just cause here?

Well, back to work.

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I said nothing of the sort. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm trying to understand the words you put in your own mouth when you said: "The thing is that we're supposed to be above their level."

I don't agree that they should be held to a lower level than we are held.

katchow,
I appreciate the honesty in saying that you are concerned about the political ramifications for American domestic politics rather than the ramifications for Iraq.

IJReilly,
I understand his criticism, and I think that "cheerleading"--marking the deaths of those two with comments reflecting it as a positive development--is quite appropriate.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by macfan

I don't agree that they should be held to a lower level than we are held.


do you honestly think that's what pbrit was saying or are you just being persnickety?

clearly, he meant the US should hold itself to a higher standard than it currently does. in no way does logic suggest that means holding someone else to anything.

Edge100
Jul 23, 2003, 01:25 PM
I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq - Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary (07/21/03)



Zimv20, I must know where you found this quote! Hilarious!

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 01:28 PM
zimv20,

I'm not sure if that's what he meant to say, but that's what he did say. He sought to minimize the Iraqi crimes saying that captured soldiers should expect to be tortured (as thought that makes it somehow the responsibility of Bush 41). He said this in the context of arguing that Saddam's sons were not enemies of the United States. I'm sorry, but when you torture my soldiers, you make yourself my enemy, and it matters not whether have a history of torture or whether you think it's ok to torture.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,

I'm not sure if that's what he meant to say, but that's what he did say.

he was referring to neighboring mideast nations. i think it was iran, in particular. seems mr. wolfowitz doesn't have much of an ear for irony.

edit: spelling

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Edge100
Zimv20, I must know where you found this quote! Hilarious!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/iraq_wolfowitz_dc

oh, here's who he was talking about:

remarks aimed at Iraq's neighbors and suspected foreign fighters who may have arrived in the country

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
he was referring to neighboring mideast nations. i think it was iran, in particular. seems mr. wolfowitz doesn't have much of an ear for irony.

edit: spelling

I was talking about pseudobrit's commet, but the Wolfowitz comment is quite amusing out of context, and ironic in context.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I was talking about pseudobrit's commet

oops! nevermind.

IJ Reilly
Jul 23, 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I understand his criticism, and I think that "cheerleading"--marking the deaths of those two with comments reflecting it as a positive development--is quite appropriate.

So, let me see if I understand your position correctly: It's acceptable for the press to editorialize the news, so long as their editorializing agrees with your personal views.

And please, don't turn this into a question of whether I personally approve of these events, because clearly that is not the point. (Yes, I do need a preemptive strike against this sort of reply from you.)

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
(Yes, I do need a preemptive strike against this sort of reply from you.)

do you have evidence of his Words of Meticulous Diversion?

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 02:09 PM
In writing a newspaper story, I would not add celebratory language, but would just include the facts of the case. However, televsion anchors like Wolf Blitzer are more conversational in tone and may from time to time express an opinion on the events of the day. They provide analysis as well as news. I don't have a problem with that. There are different places and times at which it is appropriate for members of the media to provide opinion and analysis, and it doesn't bother me whether I agree with that analysis or not, except that I would prefer newspaper news articles and straight new broadcasts (as opposed to "infotainment") to be free of such editorializing.

katchow
Jul 23, 2003, 02:33 PM
i wonder when we will finally confront the issue of chemical pesticides?

When will we realize the danger of 'weapons of grass destruction'?

sorry. really cheesy, huh?

IJ Reilly
Jul 23, 2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
do you have evidence of his Words of Meticulous Diversion?

Among other less then reputable debating tactics, is a marked tendency to divert discussion away from unfavorable issues, to ignore some tough questions entirely, and to attribute to the opponent opinions which he has not expressed. At the risk of making this "personal" (which is absolutely not the intention), I will continue to point this out when it occurs, as I have done on several occasions already, and make an effort to prevent it from happening, when possible. This is all towards the end of having a serious debate about serious issues, wherein we all might learn something, instead of an ideological bludgeon match or some sort of pointless endurance contest.

Pinto
Jul 23, 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
WMDAre you saying you would have risked your life to go in their to capture him. You don't seem to have any idea about war or what it is like out there.

I wouldn't go in to capture them, but then again that call is not for the grunts (the guys in the firing line) to make.

You don't seem to understand the chain of command.

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 05:57 PM
In this case, it seems to have been the call of the commander on the ground. They gave ample chance for those inside to give up, and they then killed them in a very unfair fight. (There's a term for a fair fight in military situations: tactical mistake). I think he made the right choice.

pseudobrit
Jul 23, 2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,

I'm not sure if that's what he meant to say, but that's what he did say. He sought to minimize the Iraqi crimes

************. Quit telling me what I meant to say.

saying that captured soldiers should expect to be tortured (as thought that makes it somehow the responsibility of Bush 41).

They should be.

If I tell you that I think police should be trained to fire their weapons accurately, would you then say that I was implying that the American people were of such a base culture that they'd threaten a police officer and at the same time I was condoning cop killing because I thought the cops should be ready to be killed?

No? You wouldn't make the same conclusions? Then shut up and quit filling in blanks I didn't leave.

He said this in the context of arguing that Saddam's sons were not enemies of the United States. I'm sorry, but when you torture my soldiers, you make yourself my enemy, and it matters not whether have a history of torture or whether you think it's ok to torture.

1) We expected this behaviour from them.

2) We were in their country when they attacked our military.

3) They never did anything to the American population.

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit


1) We expected this behaviour from them.

2) We were in their country when they attacked our military.

3) They never did anything to the American population.

1. Why does it matter if it is expected? How does this make them not an enemy of the United States?

2. If you remember, we were kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Again, how does this make them not enemies of the United States?

3. They never did anything to the Icelandic population, but I really fail to see the relvance. They did plenty to Iraqis, Kuwaitis, and to American and allied POWs. How does this make them not enemies of the United States.

You can have a little pity party for them if you like over your idea that they weren't enemies of the United States and didn't deserve everything they got and more, but I don't think I'll join in!

pseudobrit
Jul 23, 2003, 09:28 PM
You're the turtle, mad at the scorpion because he stung you.

pseudobrit
Jul 23, 2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by macfan
You can have a little pity party for them if you like over your idea that they weren't enemies of the United States and didn't deserve everything they got and more, but I don't think I'll join in!

I'll bet you $10,000 there will be no celebration, sanfelipe.

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 09:35 PM
pseudobrit,
You are getting close to the line.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 09:39 PM
inside voice, everyone.

pseudobrit
Jul 23, 2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
You are getting close to the line.

Well, you crossed my line when you accused me of holding a pity party.

A similar comment got sanfelipe banned.

Rower_CPU
Jul 23, 2003, 10:20 PM
You both are toeing that line with regularity.