Hurray! Saddam's Sons Officially Dead!

I think there are situation were weapons greatly increase the likelyhood of murder. A gun certainly makes killing a quick and perhaps easy act for the killer.

Weapons of mass destruction make it possible for one or a few people to kill many. While I am concerned about the poisoning of a water supply or the detonation of a nuke, I am much less concened about one person running around strangling thousands of people.

 

Would the ability to control the weather be consider a weapon of mass destruction? That ability may not be too far distant - how would you counter that?

 

I hate to start any "conspiracy theories" but I am not totally convinced that they are 100% the real Husseins.

There were many employed doubles for these dudes. It just appears very odd that they would be done in so easily.

Can't put my finger on it yet, but I am just not convinced.

The Govt has been wrong before...

 

I think there are plenty of weapons of mass destruction available and uncontrolled right now. Oklahoma City and 9/11 proved that. The security measures implemented since then would not deter those events much less more creative ones. I don't believe I would prefer the kind of society that would be necessary to totally prevent terrorists.

My post was merely to point out the lunacy of suggesting weapons don't increase the number of people violently murdered.

 

I'm very troubled by this war. I don't believe that we were told the truth concerning the reasons for it, and I believe this war will be long, hard, and deadly. WMD have not been found and may not have still existed.

As for Saddam's sons. We complain when our wounded and dead are displayed and call it inhuman. How will we say this now after displaying Saddam's sons like stuffed trophies. John Bear mentioned the rule of law. I agree, capture them, ask questions, and put them on trial. Saddam is an evil killer, but he loved his sons. To parade them around like we have is wrong and the act of the barbarians we complain about. In the old west the good guys wore white hats. If we're not careful we will be wearing the dark hats, if not already accomplished.

I doubt we have any sort of exit strategy. This appears to be a thing that will be with us for years. The body bags are being sent back home 1-3 a day, 500-1000 per year, and for how many years? This, I'm afraid is a very bad war, best to have left alone. Vietnam seems to have been forgotten, possibly a major error. It's much easier to get in these things than to find ways out.

 

I plead ignorant as to the details of the Brothers Grim demise, but would not a few tears gas canisters or other numbing agents been more appropriate means in capturing these two for future iterrogation? I was not there and I would not criticize our troops for their gallant work but would question the higher ups decisions to go in with guns-a-blazin'. Monday morning quarterbacking does not work in this game.

 

a) My understanding is that the vast majority of Iraqis were terrified by the thought of reprisals from these two guys; the photographs were displayed to alleviate those fears. I mean, it's not as if their lifeless bodies, dangling at the end of a crane with nooses around their necks (Taliban-style), were driven around the streets (a distinct possibility had they been captured and subjected to their own "criminal justice system").

b) Rule of law = in defending oneself, one has the right to use whatever amount of force is reasonably necessary. Generally, the use of deadly force is reasonable when a person is defending him/herself against deadly force. The brothers had ample opportunity to surrender. It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that they never had any intention of doing so.

c) Saddam is an evil killer but I haven't gotten the impression that he cares about anyone other than Saddam. In fact, my impression is that he was perfectly willing to throw his sons under the bus in an effort to (somehow) preserve himself.