Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by macfan, Jul 22, 2003.
A good start. Now find the father, too.
Front page, CNN.
Um maybe now we can get the person we went into iraq for?
Re: Saddam's sons dead.
kudos to the 101st airborne.
Silly me. I thought this was a current event!
did it get moved?
Re: Saddam's sons dead.
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.
Yes, a political one.
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.).
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.
Re: Re: Saddam's sons dead.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.