Saddam Hussein arrested part II

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Monkspider:
Even if you consider all victims of his two wars being directly Bush's fault, he still has massacred much less than Saddam.
And Bush isn't precisely using torture systematically (I don't call the torture of a fey people in Gitmo "systematical"), nor does he or his heirs rape on a whim.

Right, I'm not saying Bush is as bad as Saddam, just that they are two men cut from the same cloth, and that Bush could have been as bad as Saddam, under different circumstances.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
According to Swedish news, the soldier who found Saddam was just about to throw a grenade down the spider hole to clear it once and for all. The same news said that was the common procedure for such situations. Is that really a wise tactic?

I can understand that it could be dangerous and time consuming to send a guy down the hole to have a look what's in there, and special surveillance equipment (like a camera on a pole) is not widely available. Still, it seems like another one of those "shoot first and ask the questions later" tactics that could eventually cost US the political defeat.

- Hey, we're 'Murcans. We examine things by blowing 'em up...

There's a long list of reasons why a HE grenade down a hole like that could be a big mistake:

1) A bunch of kids could be hiding there. If I was a kid, and enemy soldiers came to my house, kicked in the door, shouted angry commands in an unknown language and harrassed my parents, it would make perfect sense to run away and hide in a secret little cave.

2) The bad guys could have hidden a ton of high explosives down there. BOOOOMMMM!

3) Saddam could be hiding there. If the soldiers even bother to go down the hole and look after the explosion (which I doubt) all they have is a dead unknown person, quite likely messed up beyond recognition. Then he could be dead and no one would know. The search would go on forever.

4) Destroying private property for no obvious reason will not increase the support from the people in Iraq.

if u give everyone a snake camera they might use those.

otherwise they are going to throw grenades in holes unless they feel very confident in their surroundings. cuz u forgot the one thing that throwing a grenade down a hole does best. stop the thrower of the grenade from dying.

[Jaguar]

Monkspider, I support the death penalty in this case, but believe the Iraqi people should try him. I guess I am cut from the same cloth as Saddam as well.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
Right, I'm not saying Bush is as bad as Saddam, just that they are two men cut from the same cloth, and that Bush could have been as bad as Saddam, under different circumstances.

Virtually anyone could have been the same as Saddam, under different circumstances. Your point?

[MrFun]

Re: Saddam Hussein arrested part II

Originally posted by Ming
Pick it up where you left off.

And what if I don't want to, huh??

[Dinner]

According to Swedish news, the soldier who found Saddam was just about to throw a grenade down the spider hole to clear it once and for all. The same news said that was the common procedure for such situations. Is that really a wise tactic?

Having attended several US Army MOUNT (Urban Warfare) training sessions I can tell you that throwing a granade in a rat hole is standard operating procedure. This makes sense when you realize the attacking force usually sustains 3-5 times the casualities the defending force does in an urban enviroment thus in order to minimize the time and blood it takes to clear cramped places (which could easily turn into deadly ambushes) a granade is thrown in to clear the room or atleast to disorientate the defenders before s fire time rushes into the room.

I don't consider this to be excessive especially given the extremely high casualty rates US forces sustained trying to clear out Japanese rat holes in WW2, Chinese rat holes in Korea, or VC rat holes in Vietnam.

[TCO]

Look anyone who has communist party next to their avatar is a fruit loop. Just dismiss monkspider as a silly kid.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by yavoon


if u give everyone a snake camera they might use those.

otherwise they are going to throw grenades in holes unless they feel very confident in their surroundings. cuz u forgot the one thing that throwing a grenade down a hole does best. stop the thrower of the grenade from dying.

Not if the hole is filled with C4, or God forbid, poison gas.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Having attended several US Army MOUNT (Urban Warfare) training sessions I can tell you that throwing a granade in a rat hole is standard operating procedure. This makes sense when you realize the attacking force usually sustains 3-5 times the casualities the defending force does in an urban enviroment thus in order to minimize the time and blood it takes to clear cramped places (which could easily turn into deadly ambushes) a granade is thrown in to clear the room or atleast to disorientate the defenders before s fire time rushes into the room.

I don't consider this to be excessive especially given the extremely high casualty rates US forces sustained trying to clear out Japanese rat holes in WW2, Chinese rat holes in Korea, or VC rat holes in Vietnam.

In a combat situation in a highly hostile environment, what you say makes perfect sense. But this wasn't a combat situation. No shots were fired (according to the news). You can't blow and shoot things up by default whenever you search a civilian private house.

[Dinner]

You can't blow and shoot things up by default whenever you search a civilian private house.

When you ask the owner point blank if there are any weapons, rat holes, or contraban on his property (BTW this is also S.O.P.) and he lies to you then it is safe to say he is up to no good. Especially when it is in an openly hostile area like the Sunni Triangle where numerous attacks have occured. Yes, I'd say you most certainly can assume the rat hole is likely to be dangerous to your men (I.E. is booby trapped or contains militants).

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by monkspider


Right, I'm not saying Bush is as bad as Saddam, just that they are two men cut from the same cloth, and that Bush could have been as bad as Saddam, under different circumstances.

To be fair, Monkspider, anyone could have.

[East Street Trader]

Constitutions have been imposed on numerous states by outgoing invaders. The British went in for this on a wholesale basis when dismantling the British Empire and the US has tried it regularly.

Yet I know of no case where the constitution so imposed has taken root.

Which comes as no surprise if you take a brief look at any settled constitution - the evolution of each has invariably been a slow and stuttering process.

I doubt this proposition would be much contested by those who are now working up the constitution which will temperarily be imposed on the Iraqis. So why is this aspect of the situation - rather than, say, re-building the odd road or water main or police force - getting attention? Well it is because sorting out the constitution is what stands between the invaders and their exit from the country.

But there does seem to me to be a problem for them. Oppressive regimes - with more or less powerful weapons available to them - come and go without the US or the UK feeling called upon to take any action. Except in the middle east where oil is so plentiful.

So the question is, how much of a political imperative is it to stop the flow of body bags as compared to the political imperative of keeping cheap oil flowing?

My own guess is that on this occasion a wholly de-stabilised middle east will turn out to be the lesser of the political evils and there will be only the most perfunctory attempt to leave Iraq with workable arrangements.

Unless the US/UK could pull off the considerable trick of dumping a peacekeeping role onto the UN.

It is going to represent a considerable irony either way. Because if the medium term effect of what has been done is substantially to de-stabilize the region, the decision to kill Saddam Hussein will turn out to be the biggest U turn in policy I can ever remember seeing occur. Whereas if the US turns out now to work very closely with the UN, that will represent both a U turn in policy and also a distinct oddity bearing in mind the way that relationship seemed at first to be affected.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin


When you ask the owner point blank if there are any weapons, rat holes, or contraban on his property (BTW this is also S.O.P.) and he lies to you then it is safe to say he is up to no good. Especially when it is in an openly hostile area like the Sunni Triangle where numerous attacks have occured. Yes, I'd say you most certainly can assume the rat hole is likely to be dangerous to your men (I.E. is booby trapped or contains militants).

What if the hole is an ammo depot? I'm no demolition expert, but wouldn't a HE grenade trigger a larger explosion that could kill anyone within range.

And if you had blown up Saddam without knowing it, you could have been forced to search for him forever, and never be able to leave without risking a civil war where he came back with a vengeance. Who knows if Osama is laying under a pile of rubble in a cave somewhere, and you will never find out.

And if a bunch of children are hiding in the hole, the parents may lie about it to protect their kids.

[Chilean President™]

Originally posted by oedo

not remotely as funny as your avatar.

Thanks ...y guess..

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Literacy rates are probalby as High in Latin Americ as in Iraq, and many of those states are coming of much lighter dictatorships that Iraq, yet their new democracies are many times shaky. iraq has immense porblems both ethnic, religious, and nationalistic, and honestly it will take decades to make Iraq a working democracy that some people sell us. I don't know if we could have picked a worst place to experiement for democracy than it. Syria and Egypt would have been far better places to try first.

Precisely because Iraq was under such a brutal dictatorship the Iraqi people are more likely to welcome US intervention, whereas in Syria and Egypt they would have seen as imperialist, pro-zionist occupiers. Also I think the demographics are much less favorable in Syria and Egypt.

WRT to Latin America, it depends on exactly when we're talking about, since Latin American demographics have improved markedly in the last 30 years, no? And while latin american democracies have been shaky, they have managed to survive almost everywhere theyve been established since the spread of Latin American democracy began in the late '70s.


I mean if your claim is that Iraq is not going to look like the Netherlands or Finland, you're certainly right. Even a shaky democracy is a big gain over there.