BS: Saddam's Boys

Subject: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 04:09 PM

Haven't seen a posting regarding the demise of Qusay and Uday (did I miss it?) but I was wondering what time will make of their death? It has been reported that these two "famously cruel" men refused to surrender and were killed by 200+ American troops. What will the Iraqi folk songs look like compared to Western versions of events? Was it the crushing of cockroaches or an Iraqi Butch and Sundance?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 04:24 PM

See the "Aces Wild" thread for discussion of their purported demise.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Dead Horse
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 02:43 PM

I wonder if Saddam hisself will go to the funeral?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 02:52 PM

Good riddance factor applied, who gives a fuck?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 02:55 PM

It just proves that "civilization" is a thin veneer..The sight of our so called Christian leaders Glorying in death and blood makes me sick.
Sometimes rogue elements need to be removed but the nudge nudge didnt we do well mentality is disgusting..What about the 14yr old boy who was roasted with the tyrants has he been convieniantly forgotten

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 03:06 PM

akenaton...We are all sure they would have left a long time ago if you had just been allowed to ask them.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 03:19 PM

You can destroy a mad or bad animal with out glorying in "the kill"

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 03:24 PM

As God created us all(according to the Christians)Shurely it must be wrong for devout christians like Bush and Blair to Glory in the deathsof his creations

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 03:41 PM

akenation...Don't use Christianity as a club to beat up Christians. It make you look even more pathetic than you did before.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 05:20 PM

The photos were released. Here they are in the Kansas City Star. They arranged it so innocuous x-rays are on the main page, and you're warned that the photos are graphic. They're also convincing. Since this is in the category of "breaking news" the link might not stick around long. I found this at Google News.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 05:50 PM

Guest... The pathetic people are those who use their religion for political ends...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 06:48 PM

Too often, events of this Iraq war have been reported as if they were a sporting event. Many people I know have bought into the Bush Administration's propaganda, and they seem to be able to rejoice in all the death and destruction that has taken place. I suppose that killing must happen at times, but can it ever be cause for rejoicing?

I suppose it's to be expected. Bush liked to boast about how many death row prisoners he killed when he was governor. Can he really believe that the Almighty views him as somehow superior to Saddam Hussein?

Tyrants are all the same.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:12 PM

Joe - I have no doubts as to the vain glory that GWB would wish to attatch himself to, and personally I see the difference between him and Saddam Hussain as minute in principal, but vaste in terms of what the electorate can deal with.

War is Bloody, War is Evil - But unfortunatley sometimes War is the lesser of two evils.

I concur that it would have been better to have taken the Saddam's alive, after all they would have talked, eventually, and that is without physical torture.

But the choice was casulties amongst your own unit, and alow the chance of escape or use of fire power.

I will not revel in thier deaths - but as sure as hell I wont lose any sleep.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:37 PM

akenaton...oh pathetic one, then why do You do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 09:23 PM

Mr. Offer...Texas Gov. Bush never boasted about any such thing. He said that capital punishment was the will of the people and stayed out of the way. You are a bald-faced liar and anything else you say is suspect. Liars are all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 09:42 PM

Word on the street is that Bush is gonna have Saddam's kids heads removed, shrunken and stuck on sticks in front of the White House...

Boy, mankind has really progressed under Bush.

And, GUEST (9:23), while you are most certainly techinically correct about Bush not boasting of the number of folks who were executed in Texas while he was governor, he certainly made no attemptes to correct a terribly flawed system that sent innocent men to their deaths...

And that ain't no bald-faced lie, just bald faced truth...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: mack/misophist
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 10:44 PM

I hate defending the bush, but publishing those pictures was the correct thing to do. Arab papers often show the dead. Arabs will expect to see this. I don't know a thing about how they feel when they look at them but the pictures are shown.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 10:54 PM

But not *shot-to-Hell-an'-back* pictures, Misophist....

Surely, you understand the difference...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 01:21 AM

OK. I misspoke. What I meant to say is that Bush seemed to celebrate the execution of convicts in Texas. Never once did he express any regret about the death of so many.
And that's the truth.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: mack/misophist
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 01:37 AM

Yes, Bobert, 'shot to hell and back' pictures. Saadi at the corner store subscribes to several Arab papers and the pictures are quite obvious. I've seen them.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 02:15 AM

"Word on the street is that Bush is gonna have Saddam's kids heads removed, shrunken and stuck on sticks in front of the White House...

Boy, mankind has really progressed under Bush."

Another sensationalised, emotive outburst from Bobert - which is as usual totally baseless, with Bobert in his final sentence using that falsehood as substantiation to create a fact - Typical, nonsensically pathetic, but typical.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST,Jeger
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:07 AM

Then there are the are victims, at least those who survived. They
celebrate the demise of these cruel and wicked men. They need to have closure.   Yes there is celebration together with the victims as well if you have a heart at all . . . Knowing that they will no longer terrorize men women and children. It is just that these things are not close enough to home for you so you are full of lofty thought castles. We hear about trauma for way lesser things than what these creeps have done.   
Why, why such an outcry of sympathy for the criminal and the wicked? Where are the sounds of concern about the thousands of victims of these men and the long term scars they have left on thousands and thousands of lives. Why not jubilation on behalf of all the thousands who will now be spared from their further evil.
I happen to have personally known a couple of people who languished in Baghdad prisons. One who was tortured got out later but died prematurely due to injuries from the tortures. Where are your tears and where is your outcry on their behalf?
And c'mon! Where is your sympathy for all the victims of base criminals who end up on death row in the US and are stopped from continuing their brutal crimes? Whether or not a person approves of capital punishment you HAVE TO SAY that those that are executed have a powder puff death by comparison to those they have raped killed, mangled, and compared to those they would continue to brutalize if they were not stopped.
Jeger

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 06:13 AM

guest....The answer to your question is that I have no religion..Whereas B+B use religion to influence simple people...Though I must say this tactic seems to be more prevalent in America.I hope you dont need to stoop to further personal abuse if you post again as this is usually a sign of a shaky argument
       Best wishes...Alex...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Pied Piper
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 06:39 AM

I don't enjoy looking at pictures like this, but this is the reality of war.
Films and TV generally give a sanitised view of war.
Which is the most obscene, the truth or the lie?

Fuck W*r

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:11 AM

Unlike the Arab news agencies, the coalition countries did not release pictures of dead combatants such as would cause distress to families who might see them.
With these two, the people needed the reassurance that they were dead.
There is fear that the regime will rise again.
They are used to being lied to.
There is some doubt that Chemical Alli is dead.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 01:35 PM

akenaton... The fact that you have no religion need not be said. It is self-evident from your statements. Your last post implies that people who follow their deepest convictions are using "tactics" and that religion is a way to control "simple people". Again, pathetic hateful bashing of people who wish you only the best.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 04:00 PM

Well, here is my favorite quote so far on the controversy over the identity of those men in the photos, from today's Washington Post:

"As grim as the photos were, all the debate about the status of the brothers brought to mind a line sung by the Munchkin coroner in "The Wizard of Oz" regarding a wicked witch who had been crushed by a house: "She's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead."

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 04:06 PM

I would prefer it if you would refer to them as electroencephalographically challenged, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 04:48 PM

Ya know, being shown the photos without the sense of self-righteous, in-yer-face arrogance would have made me less critical of this whole stupid, sickening futile display of American triumphalism. But this report from the Associated Press of the display of the mutilated and made up bodies, pretty much nails the coffin shut on any credibility the US had in this debate. This reads more like the FBI displaying the bodies of Bonnie and Clyde, doesn't it?

From AP:

"The images of Odai and Qusai Hussein published Thursday had raised criticism by showing only the brothers' faces and upper chests - the faces obscured by heavy beards, blood and gashes - and giving no indication of height.

By contrast, the military showed journalists, including an Associated Press reporter, the autopsied bodies covered only by sheets and presented identifying evidence, including dental records and a rod from Odai's leg.

Odai's beard had been trimmed to the length he had worn it in life. Qusai's beard was shaved off and he had only a mustache, his trademark. The faces appeared waxy and heavily made up.

Morticians removed a large gash that had cut across the middle of Odai's face. Odai's abdomen had been riddled with bullets, and the torsos of both brothers bore large Y-shaped incisions.

Autopsy incisions were also visible on Odai's left leg, where doctors removed the 8-inch long bar inserted after a 1996 assassination attempt. A piece of leg bone taken out with the bar was wrapped in plastic and lying next to his body on the gurney."

Mind, I know these men were butchers, but what does that make us for engaging in this sort of macabre exercise?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:03 PM

I'd have expected that the expressions of rejoicing at the death of Saddam's sons would have been accompanied by at least a token expression of regret at the death of his fourteen-year-old grandson Mustafa. (Maybe Bush and Blair did express regret, and it's been cut out of the media reports. Maybe.)

This was not a successful outcome. Once they were trapped in the house there was no way out, and it should have been possible to capture them - after all there weren't any hostages involved to complicate the process of the house siege.

It is probabaly true that this could encourage people who might have been frightened of Saddam coming back to power, for example through some kind of deal with the occupiers. That might seem a ridiculous idea to us, but I'm sure people in Iraq remember what happened in 1992.

However this could in fact have some unfortunate consequences. One might be could be that people who don't like Saddam, but don't like the occupying forces either, will feel freer to resort to violence against the foreign troops.

And I suspect that the story of young Mustafa, fighting on after his father and uncle were dead, and, by reason of his age, without any responsibility for what his family had done to Iraq, could be very dangerous indeed. It could act as a bridge between Saddam loyalists and Sadddam opponents. More especially if Saddam gets killed next in some similar operation. Much more of a threat dead than alve.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:07 PM

Lokks as if it's just a fdew of us, GUEST, that see this as a barnaric display of chest thumpin' on Bush and Rumsfeld's part. Guesds there are a lot of folks who need their morbid curiousity scratched. As fir me, I think it was terribly juvenilish and base.

And as fir being squeemish about seeing a dead body, that ain't me. My late wife, Judy, died 6 years ago died of cancer in our home and spent the next 3 hours with her body waiting for the morticans.

One last thought, this act may have been intended to assure the Iraqis of the death of these two, but for many it will be viewed as an in-your-face taunting. Should there be a retaliation, do you folks want the Iraqi's to make those pictures public?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:13 PM

Not only is this latest version of "She's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead", but how on earth is ANYONE going to believe, after already seeing the still photos, that a SECOND set of photos showing the bodies differently, are going to convince anyone of anything, besides the US can't be trusted to tell the truth about the death of the two sons?

I mean c'mon!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:15 PM

This is apparently what was said before the various media spin doctors started doing their thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:27 PM

This wee part is revealing...

"Q: Thank you. General, I'd like to try and see if you could address more of the first question which we had from our colleague up front. The Americans are specialists in surrounding places, keeping people in them, holding up for a week, if necessary, to make them surrender. These guys only had, it appears, AK-47s, and you had immense amount of firepower. Surely, the possibility of the immense amount of information they could have given coalition forces, not to mention the trials that they could have been put on for war crimes, held out a much greater possibility of victory for you if you could have surrounded that house and just sat there until they came out, even if they were prepared to keep shooting.

GEN. SANCHEZ: Sir, that is speculation.

Next slide (sic).

Q: No, sir, it's an operational question. Surely you must have considered this much more seriously than you suggested.

GEN. SANCHEZ: Yes, it was considered, and we chose the course of action that we took.

Q: Why, sir?

GEN. SANCHEZ: Next slide -- or, next question, please. "

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST,Jeger
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:31 PM

Something is wrong with this picture.

Regrets for his 14 year old son
Who most likely was carrying a gun?
And yet where's your concern for the evil they have done!
And whether or not he did fight side by side with his father, STILL no real regrets are being voiced by those of you who show concern for this boy, for the thousands who have died in silence. The things endured under their reign and in the prisons could not be retold by those who got out because those still in prison would be tortured all the more. Pretty cleaver. Their tactic worked pretty well didn't it. You whine about the son but not about the untold evil that has been done to the silent thousands including, no doubt many many many children of these people!
Jeger

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:46 PM

As the old saying goes Jeger, two wrongs don't make a right. Because someone is guilty of war crimes and human rights abuses, doesn't justify another wrongdoing, just for the sake of political expediency. Also, I don't think it is accurate to assume that because we are critical of the ways US CentCom and the Bush administration have (mis)handled events in post-war Iraq, that it means we are defending the Hussein regime, or suggesting that the sons weren't criminals.

I think many an American and British citizen would much rather have seen the sons taken alive, so that they could have been tried, and we could have gotten more information out of them. Like where all the money is that they looted, which could be returned to the Iraqi people, and aid in the reconstruction of the country. Or that they might have been able to provide information about the whereabouts of other "high interest targets" as US CentCom refers to the other wanted members of the regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:51 PM

What's the big fuss over a buncha dead sand niggers? Ain't like they're human.

God Bless America!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 06:31 PM

Those questions General Sanchez refused to answer are not going to go away. It seems to me that this was a very serious mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 06:51 PM

I've visited the photos Reuter's has of the two sons in their "repaired" state. There is a mixed message delivered, aspects probably not intended along with a couple of main agenda items. These are meant to speak to the people who actually knew the men--word will filter out from them concerning the veracity of the claim that these are Saddam Hussein's sons. And the signs of tampering--clear, gross autopsy incisions--there to inflame Saddam Hussein himself, perhaps to tempt him into reckless behavior to give away his location?

The entire nation of Iraq must feel like it's lying on an autopsy table, giant gashes carved into it as the U.S. pokes around. Bush and Rumsfeld just can't cram the mortuary putty in fast enough to hide the damage

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 06:59 PM

Surely you, so many of whom are brilliant military strategists, have considered the probability of a tunnel network. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: X
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 02:08 PM

You folks would be crying over Hilter if we took him out in 1940.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 02:18 PM

If there'd been a tunnel network they wouldn't have been lkely to stick around to get blown up.

The assumption that the only Iraqis who are likely to be gunning for the occupying forces are fans of Saddam beggars belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 02:20 PM

The Banjoest is sure not wrong about that. Back when Hitler had his pact with Stalin, Pete Seeger and his leftwing folky friends were vehement opponents of America joining in the war against Hitler's Nazi regime. The current leftwing arguments against the war with Saadam Hussein's mass murdering regime are almost identical to those used by lefties in the early days of WWII.

But then, when Hitler turned on Stalin, his fellow mass murdering dictator, Pete and his folky friends were enlisting in the army and singing "Round and Round Hitler's Grave."

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 02:38 PM

Gets confusing with GUEST don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Gareth
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 02:45 PM

Ah Yes - A thought to be a true story - 1941 And the British Communist Party Conference. Harry Pollit, the "premature anti-facist" is making a speech.

Predictably Harry is condeming this "Capitalist War".

Harry is handed a note saying "Hitler has invaded Russis", and without breaking he stride he immediatly launched into a tirade on how it was the duty of every working class man to oppose Hitler etc.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 07:39 PM

Rather similar to the way Saddam turned from being Washington's loyal agent to being a loathsome enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: X
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 08:17 PM

Booo hoo hooo.

You guys at the "Cat" are too pink for me. I'm out of here!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 11:56 PM

To call this threads "Saddam's Boys" makes them seem like they were small children -- they were not, they were grown adults (maybe not very mature, but adults all the same). It should be called "Saddam's Sons."

As for the pictures, I've finally seen them. They're not very gruesome, at least in my mind. You've got two dead guys who have been punctured by bits of metal. I've said it before and I'll say it again: bits of metal don't care, they'll rip into anyone in their path.

If you want gruesome, consider someone dead of a shotgun wound to the head. Someone with their throat cut so deeply that they are nearly decapitated -- or someone's head thrown through the windshield in a car crash. Ride with a cop or a paramedic to a bad crash -- or sort through a fire that killed a child.

Or consider what those sons of Saddam did to others.

I'm sorry they're dead -- I'd rather they stood trial -- but I can't say that I feel a sense of loss, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 06:18 AM

Ah yes Kevin, but at least the US of A removed Saddam, so why criticise the US of A ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 12:40 PM

To criticize with the right intention, which would include but isn't limited to getting at truth, learningt from past mistakes, setting things aright, improving conditions sorely in need of improvement--that is why people criticize, Gareth. All of those intentions are noble and positive. Most of us aren't naive enough to believe that just because our intentions when criticizing someone, something, some nation, etc. are good, that means that the outcome of our examining something critically will be positive, or even what is hoped and longed for, but that doesn't mean we should sit back and allow our thinking to be determined by the propaganda the US government attempts to feed us, especially through the mass media.

When you live in a democracy, the government and all it's proxies are constantly being scrutinized and examined critically. That is THE MOST POSITIVE aspect of being a US citizen, and having the privlege of living in a democratic society. You aren't guillotined for expressing a negative opinion of the government, or demanding an inquiry, or critically examining the policies the government is carrying out in your name.

I have to wonder about the mental state of any person who lives in a democratic society, and whines around about people being critical of the government. As citizens, it is our job and our responsibility to examine the actions of the government critically, and overthrow the government when it oversteps it's bounds. In a democratic society, we overthrow the government with ballots instead of bullets. But that doesn't make the contest any less intense and passionate.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 01:06 PM

And Stalin and his mates did the heavy lifting to remove Hitler.

"...seem like they were small children...they were grown adults".   Saddam's grandson was fourteen years old. True enough, he appears to have been firing back at the Americans who had killed his father and uncle. But only killed because they chose not to treat this as what it was, a house siege.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 01:17 PM

One more thing about this "why criticize the US of A" about current policies towards Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.

There is the truism that if we don't know and understand our history, we are destined to repeat it. The US is now viewed as being the greatest threat to world security for a very good reason. It is the US government policies of many years, of exploiting and manipulating "our bastards" (as former ambassador to the UN for the Reagan administration, Jean Kirkpatrick, said when acknowledging the US policy preference for supporting puppet governments and putting despots in power around the world), that has now come home to roost. It is that policy which brought on the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden was "our bastard". Saddam Hussein was "our bastard". The Taliban were "our bastards". Ferdinand Marcos was "our bastard". Somoza was "our bastard". Ariel Sharon is "our bastard". The South African apartheid government was "our bastards".

The list of the United States' "our bastards" who are tyrants, despots, butchers, and monsters is very long indeed. The US citizenry is now paying the price, literally, for our government's mistakes. We are paying for a war on terror that never needed to happen. We are paying for an occupation in Iraq that never needed to happen. We are paying for an occupation in Afghanistan that never needed to happen. All the money going to those foreign military occupations is money that could have been used at home and abroad, for desperately needed peaceful, civil uses, like education, health care, affordable housing, raising standards of living, building sustainable economies, research and development of non-polluting and less polluting energy production, manufacturing, business and residential uses, etc.

All this money, all this blood being spent and spilled in our name, is an utter waste of human ingenuity, resourcefulness, curiousity, creativity, and our best instincts as human beings to care for one another. An utter, criminal waste. And I, for one, am not willing to forgive the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush administrations for creating that legacy. Which makes me very critical of those despots, indeed.

Now, as a result of American imperial adventuring and over-reach around the globe.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 04:22 PM

Here here!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 06:05 PM

Guest - put yer moniker to your post and I might be bothered to reply.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 06:18 PM

There's one thing we are agreed on, Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 09:28 PM

GUEST:

In spite of those who fear what you have to say because you won't stick some silly name to yer posts, I agree whole heartedly with your post 11:17 so if anyone wants to discuss the contents of that poat, I'll be glad to do so...

With that said, as an intersting side bar, there was an article in the Washington Post this morning entitled "Ahh, Free at la-Oops! Time's Up" which talks about the actual vacation time that Boss Hog in the US allows the American worker. Well, not much. Might of fact, the US rants *last* in the industrialized world with an average of 10.2 days vacation per year.

Maybe that's why the governemnt has that *extra* dough to go messin' with other folks.... We're beating ourselves to death making the money that supports the military/industrial complex....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST,"gunner"
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 08:02 AM

there's one basic mistake some of you are making in asking why the troops from the 101 didn't "wait him out". soldiers are not police. police, even "swat teams" are trained to try to keep casualties to a minimum for both the "bad guys" and "good guys" a successful police/swat operation is when no shots are fired and the subject is captured/arrested alive. soldiers are trained to cause maximum casualties to the other side until the other side either surrenders or cannot fight any more. so if you shoot at them they will shoot back until you stop shooting, if you are still alive they will take you prisoner then. if not that's just too dammed bad isn't it. saddam's sons chose their fate when, with a bunch of amatuer thugs, they took on the professionals. as for the 14 year old, with a rifle in his hands he's just as dangerous as an adult. if he was shooting at armed men they were going to shoot back. i quite realise that my comments will outrage some here, that is also "just too dammed bad". some of us have not enjoyed the luxury of spending all our lives in the soft safe places where hard reality seldom intrudes.
"gunner"

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 08:18 AM

Soldiers in an occupying army are acting largely in a policing capacity. If they aren't trained to adjust so as to act appropriately their training is defective.

In fact I'd question whether "causing maximum casualties to the other side" is ever an appropriate objective, even in war. The object is to defeat the enemy doing whatever is necessary to achieve this within the rules of engagement.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 09:14 AM

And history bears out that defeating the enemy usually comes down to killing more of "them" than they do of "you". Its naive to suggest otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 10:59 AM

Most of the people killed in World War Two were killed by the Germans. They were pretty good at "maxumum casualties." Didn't do them much good in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 11:14 AM

In support of McGrath's perspective, Klausewitz affirms that the purpose of war is to briong about a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy. That is why hot war is such a pisspoor solution and a last resort. Killing people's neighbors and relatives tends to make them much more intransigent; overwhelming brutality is overwhelming, true, but it is probably the most expensive way there is to change someone's mind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 11:25 AM

MGoH:

"Soldiers in an occupying army are acting largely in a policing capacity. If they aren't trained to adjust so as to act appropriately their training is defective."

Not true, and if they find themselves having to act in that role, certain measures are put in place to assist them:

- Imposition of Martial Law;
- The setting up of a curfew system;
- Compulsory registration of civilian population.

The situation cannot be maintained for long and every effort possible must be put into creating some form of civil administration, complete with a police force. As far as I am aware, I don't think any of the above measures have been enacted in Iraq, although efforts, are, and have been made, to set up civil authorities and local policing.

UK Forces are specifically trained to act in the role of "Aid to the civil power". US Forces are expressly forbidden from doing this under US Law.

Unfortunately, only bad news gets reported, the number of incidents are few and highly localised when you consider the size of the country.

With regard to your "House Siege", Kevin - That was a situation that could have gone to hell in high gear very rapidly, had it not been handled the way it was. I believe there are a few who contribute, who fully appreciate that, and others, who have not got the foggiest notion.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 12:16 PM

"UK Forces are specifically trained to act in the role of "Aid to the civil power". US Forces are expressly forbidden from doing this under US Law.

I'd have thought that would only apply within the United States, not in the situation of occupying forces in a foreign country. Occupying armies have very specific duties under international law, and maintaining order without "maximum casulaties" is one of these.

I think "the House Siege" did in fact end very badly indeed from the point of the occupiers and the regime they are trying to establish. I note that the UK envoy to Iraq has gone on record urgung that every effort should be made to capture Saddam rather than kill him.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 12:31 PM

You know Teribus, you really are a smart enough guy. It is obvious you want us to believe that about you, because you put a lot of time and energy into writing these long posts. If it makes you feel better about yourself, I admit it--you are an intelligent person.

However, you, just like the rest of us, have your Achilles heel. I'm guessing you don't just have this problem admitting you are wrong or mistaken in Internet chat groups. But you really do have a major personality flaw in that regard, and it is glaringly obvious. It sure looks to me as if you, at the deepest level of your being, feel you must always be right. Which must be the reason why you spend so much time here, since you never post to music threads. Here, you can easily maintain the self-satisfying delusion that you truly are brilliant, and always right. You are, in all likelihood, just here to get your superiority fix, by showing off your brilliance to us great unwashed, to engage your rather average debate skills, and to let the world know what an honorable warrior you are.

As to the honorable warrior bit, Mudcat has more than one regular who shares what I believe is a serious personality defect, with you. For me, that means I can't take you seriously here. Many of the people you choose to argue with in this forum obviously don't share your values either. But you seem unwilling to accept that you will never convince them that your values are right and more superior than theirs. Which is pretty wierd.

Speaking strictly for myself (and I don't engage you in debate much because of what I perceive as this honorable warrior personality defect), I find the whole honorable warrior bit a tiresome and worn out aspect of militarism, and of the Anglo American variety of imperial militarism in particular. At this point in human history, the world needs a lot fewer honorable warriors for militarism (and the people who pray for their side to the exclusion of all others), and a whole lot more warriors for peace. That doesn't make you the enemy, mind you. It just makes you and your value system hopelessly inadequate, irrelevant to the needs of the people and the planet, and philosophically as obsolete as it is indefensible. You are backward looking, navel gazing, and out of touch. You cannot envision a future where militarism and authoritarianism isn't at the center of everyone's lives.

I don't know if you were raised in the military, are military yourself, or an armchair general. But your allegiance to all things military and the authoritarian nature of your personality, is pretty depressing. I hope you find a way to walk in the world with us mere mortals some day. Are able to smell the roses, hear the symphonies, and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST,Strollin' Johnny
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 12:46 PM

Didn't one of Saddam's boys (Uday I think) commit suicide - I think I read that somewhere? If (and I repeat IF) that's true, he clearly had no intention of being taken alive. Moreover, have any of those who say they should have been taken alive ever looked down the barrel of an AK47? Scary.
Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 03:46 PM

The suicide suggestion was raised but discounted fairly quickly. And I'd think on something like that we can rely on what we are told being the truth, since suicide would surely have been a more satisfactory way for them to die from the point of view of the occupiers.

In a siege situation like that, there should not have been any need to "look down the barrel of an AK4". Not unless for some reason they needed to storm the building, and there wasn't any such need. Maybe sooner or later the brothers might even have decided to kill themselves, in which case, why do the job for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST,CWO II
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 03:57 PM

Guest 12:31

Typical, can't attack stance so you attack the person.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 04:02 PM

No, you are wrong about that CWO II. I could have attacked the stance, but chose to send a personal message to the person doing a lot of the attacking here instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 04:30 PM

Putting every house, storage building, moving vehicle or hole in the ground from which you take fire "under siege" would seem to be a good way to tie up an entire army very quickly, without accomplishing anything.

The US/UK forces are not exactly functioning as an "occupying army." Occupation and what they now like to call "nation building" begins when active combat has not ended. It has not, regardless of what Mr. Bush said (in one of his stupider comments), and it does not appear that either we or the Iraqis will see any spitshined boots and MP brassards anytime in the immediate future.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:15 PM

Yeah, hey, wasn't that a great photo opp when Bush flew onto that aircraft carrier announced the war was over and won? I wonder how many Americans were killed in Iraq before that date, and how many after.
I still think we shouldn't be there. I can't imagine what good we've done.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:20 PM

Yo, "gunner". If the 101st can't handle a situation without inflicting the maximum damage then they ought not be there. Same for any other units with that narrow a training. Anything less is a guarentee for failure in Iraq.

And as fir the use of maximum force, IMO, it is both a mistake from a military science perspective and a human perspective.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:49 PM

"...chose to send a personal message to the person..."

Well, GUEST, if you were a member, you could have sent Teribus a Personal Message through the PM facility. And you wouldn't risk being mixed up with some of the other strange people who post as GUEST.

"Occupation and what they now like to call "nation building" begins when active combat has not ended."

And is there any reason to believe that will ever take place, taking it to mean that, so long as there are people shooting at the foreign soldiers, it still constitutes active combat? Especially once Saddam is finally out of the picture, and there is no reason for anyone to think perhaps the US and UK soldiers are keeping him at bay. I would anticipate that armed resistance/terrorism/guerrilla warfare, call it what you will, is likely to grow with time.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:56 PM

Actually, what I had intended to say was "occupation and what they now like to call "nation building" begins when active combat has ended," without the not. Will it end anytime soon? I'd say it depends a lot on whether what is now happening has active leadership or is a "popular struggle." Personally, based on no particular inside information, I think its the former, but only time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:09 PM

I took it from the context that the not wasn't meant to be there. (Otherwise the point you were making wouldn't have made sense. Even though I disagreed with it.)

I don't think it's possible to make a clear distinction between a popular struggle and something with active leadership. Or indeed between a popular struggle and an unpopular struggle - most resistance movements are only actively, or even passively, supported by a minority.

The relevant question is whether the people organising attacks are "pro-Saddam" rather than just anti-invader, and we haven't been shown any convincing evidence indicating that. It is interesting to note indications that Iran is being increasingly identified as the next enemy, and you can't get more anti-Saddam than Iran and those Iraqis who look towards Iran as a friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 04:36 AM

Hey Bobert,

We actually totally agree on something!!!

"If the 101st can't handle a situation without inflicting the maximum damage then they ought not be there. Same for any other units with that narrow a training. Anything less is a guarentee for failure in Iraq."

As for the second paragraph, I also agree, but with some qualifications.

"And as fir the use of maximum force, IMO, it is both a mistake from a military science perspective and a human perspective."

Each situation has to be weighed up on its own merits - In the instance under discussion in this thread - I would go along with the view point taken, and assessment, of the officer commanding. His primary responsibility is to his own men, no-one else. To have them (200 men) wait around until the occupants of the house decided either to surrender themselves (highly unlikely), or commit suicide, would have put the troops under his command needlessly at risk, and probably have turned a minor incident with few casualties into a major catastrophy, with a far greater number of casualties.

GUEST - 28 Jul 03 - 12:31 PM, still waiting for your PM - but am not holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 07:20 AM

"His primary responsibility is to his own men, no-one else."

If that were really the case, no military commander would ever order his troops into battle.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 08:17 AM

Kevin,

You are splitting hairs, Re my sentence, "His primary responsibility is to his own men, no-one else.":

"If that were really the case, no military commander would ever order his troops into battle."

I am sure you know the sort of situation I am referring to, but just as an example, what you say has been known.

During the retreat to Dunkirk, the late Sir Alec Douglas-Home's brother, the screenwriter Willian Douglas-Home was an officer commanding a company. He was ordered to take a position and hold it against superior enemy forces, who had both artillery and armoured support. He refused to obey the order point blank, on the grounds that he would be needlessly throwing away the lives of his men. He was imprisoned for it (two years I believe).

Going back to the incident in Mosul being discussed in this thread. In one of your posts in another thread you said the US forces could have experienced some difficulty in setting up a seige situation, but now you seem to completely discount such difficulties, any particular reason for the shift in point of view?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 08:43 AM

As I understand it the reason for William Douglas-Home's court martial and imprisonment was because he refused to carry out orders which woudl,mhave mean the needless death of civilians.

No I'm not splitting hairs - the point is that the safety of his own men is not the primary consideration for a commanding officer, it is always seen as subordinate to trying to achieve the miltary objective. In this case the military objective should have been to capture Saddam's sons alive if at all possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 09:13 AM

MGoH,

"the point is that the safety of his own men is not the primary consideration for a commanding officer, it is always seen as subordinate to trying to achieve the miltary objective."

Granted, in general, what you say above is correct.

"In this case the military objective should have been to capture Saddam's sons alive if at all possible."

Now, in this case, Kevin, those inside the building had been given the opportunity to surrender, they declined and opened fire wounding US personnel. At this point, that is when the commanding officer of those troops exercises his judgement (re: "if at all possible") and, now under fire, his primary concern becomes his responsibility for the safety of the men under his command.

It would, indeed, have been different if those surrounding the building had known for certain, at that time, that among those inside were the sons of Saddam Hussein. But they didn't, so the order defining the military objective as stated by yourself, could not have been given orders had been issued. If they had known for certain that Saddam's sons were inside that building, orders may well have been issued which stated the "objective is to capture Saddam's sons alive at all costs." - vastly different thing, because it removes a great deal of freedom of action from those in command of the troops assigned the task.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 09:24 AM

artbrooks said Putting every house, storage building, moving vehicle or hole in the ground from which you take fire "under siege" would seem to be a good way to tie up an entire army very quickly, without accomplishing anything.

Equally killing the occupants of every house, storage building etc, would tie up an army quickly. But this way they would at least achieve a lot of dead Iraqis.

In the Mosul case, as artbrooks knows well enough, the troops were not engaged in some blanket, catch-all exercise, but were targeting one building on the basis of good intelligence from an informed source. Anyone who thinks a seige was the wrong tactic should just look again at Sanchez' response at the press conference to a question asking why he'd ruled it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 02:24 PM

Of course of the discussion here is based on the assumption that the US authorities would sooner that Saddam and his immediate entourage were captured alive for trial.

However this might not be the case. A public trial with Saddam telling all the murky secrets about how the US, including people currently involved in the administration such as Rumsfeld, were involved up to the hilt in all kinds of stuff they have managed to conceal - well that could be embarrassing.

The object of the exercise might in fact be to avoid that, by ensuring there is no such trial,

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 03:42 PM

I agree with the last post from Mcgrath and its not just a conspiracy theory,as can be seen by the contortions of our own leaders over Iraq I have learned one thing above all others concerning politicians,and that is never believe what they say...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 04:42 PM

Bingo, Kevin, you put your finger right on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 06:57 PM

I would hate to have been the company commander faced with the job of telling his or her soldiers that it was ok for a group (of unknown size) of unidentified individuals holed up in a building to fire light machine guns and missles at them (and anybody else they wanted to shoot at) but they were "under siege" and the troops were not allowed to fire back.

The RPG-7 has an effective range of half a kilometer, and can easily destroy a light tank or taxi cab, and the Kalashnikov can kill a soldier or a woman doing her daily marketing anywhere within its effective range of 1.5 kilometers. Of course, any civilian deaths that occurred during the siege would have been attributed to the Americans, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 04:22 AM

MGoH:

"Of course of the discussion here is based on the assumption that the US authorities would sooner that Saddam and his immediate entourage were captured alive for trial."

That's right Kevin, they have actually stated that - Deputy Secretary of State was reported as declaring that in a BBC report yesterday - he did, however, state that the capture of Saddam Hussein alive was not worth the loss of a single member of the coalition forces.

"However this might not be the case. A public trial with Saddam telling all the murky secrets about how the US, including people currently involved in the administration such as Rumsfeld, were involved up to the hilt in all kinds of stuff they have managed to conceal - well that could be embarrassing."

That holds true if it can be believed that Saddam and his immediate entourage were the only persons in Iraq party to the "murky secrets" referred to. That they personally and exclusively handled all matters relating to those "murky secrets". All the paper work, all the negotiations, all the physical work involved - without anybody else either knowing, or guessing, what they were up to - without there being any physical, or material, evidence resulting from the activities surrounding those "murky secrets" - Totally laughable.

Oh Yeah, GregF - he's put his finger on it alright!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 07:18 AM

"That's right Kevin, they have actually stated that"

Well, they would, wouldn't they!

It's not so much a matter of stuff being concealed, more a matter of them being ignored by the papers people read and the news programmes they watch. A trial would focus attention on them in a way that might be hard to ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 08:08 AM

GUEST 28 Jul 03 - 12:31 PM - Still no PM received, by the way, do you normally tell lies about what you have done? and about what you are going to do?

Your first paragraph of your post (date and time given above):
It is of no consequence to me whatsoever, whether you think me intelligent or not. I know that I am intelligent, by examination, by qualification, by experience and by achievement.

Achilles heels, personality flaws, serious, major or otherwise, as you admit yourself, you do not know me, therefore you are hardly in a position to make any definitive statements in regard to me personaly - You can state your opinion - but you know what they say about opinions. I have never contended that I am either brilliant, infallable, or always right - show me otherwise. I have by the way admitted that I have been both wrong, and mistaken, on a number of occasions in this forum.

A review of posts reveals that my mere 934 posts, compare to your 22,450 - you obviously have been here for alot longer than I have. I have, and do, post to music threads.

As to debating skills, while mine might be rather average - yours are completely non-existent. As far as impressions go, based on our correspondence to date, I would contend that is better to be viewed as "an honourable warrior", than as an inaccurate, conceited, arrogant, gutless, lying, coward.

You say, "Here, you can easily maintain the self-satisfying delusion that you truly are brilliant, and always right. You are, in all likelihood, just here to get your superiority fix, by showing off your brilliance to us great unwashed,"

I read through posts, musical, and non-musical, and if I see something which I believe, or know, to be inaccurate, or incorrect, I exercise my right to post my disagreement. If I feel that a post is totally biased, and tends to misinform, I will pose a counter arguement and view, backing up my arguement with whatever information I can source. When people post complete and utter rubbish I will state that it is so, and provide reasons for why I find it so.

Apart from your conceited, verbal wanking in your last two paragraphs, I can reliably inform you that I, being ex-military, have no great love of either militarism, or authoritarianism. Most people who have been in the forces are the same, their service, post-WWII has ensured that militarism and authoritarianism aren't at the center of everyone's lives.

What you perceive as being my "allegiance to all things military", may stem from the fact that I respect them for their commitment and dedication, I acknowledge that at times situations arise where their particular skills have to be used. To deny that such occasions may arise, only serves self-delusion.

No need to hope, oh nameless one. I have walked throughout this world with my fellow mortals for as long as I can remember, smelling roses and appreciating the symphonies all the way - so far, so good.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 09:03 AM

GUESTs can't send PMs, Teribus. Not without registering as members, which some of them seem to have real hang-ups about doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 09:10 AM

Point appreciated, Kevin, but members, who can send PM's, can also post as Guest. This particular one said that he/she had done so, "chose" as opposed to "choose", therefore the thought crossed my mind that this Guest might be a member.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 09:39 AM

Ah, but you have received the personal message, Teribus. It was my message of 28 Jul 03 - 12:31 PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 10:22 AM

So GUEST,CWO II - 28 Jul 03 - 03:57 PM was right, "Typical, can't attack stance so you attack the person."

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 11:22 AM

I don't think there is any reasonable way for someone to express an essentially negative opinion of another person's character, without being accused of making an ad hominem attack in the middle of a debate, actually. I made the choice to address my remarks about my opinion of you, directly to you Teribus. My comments didn't have anything specific to do with what you had said in the thread, or to do with this particular subject. Hence, no need to address your stance, because I was commenting upon your personality. My choice, and I don't feel the need to defend it to you or anyone else.

I've had my say, and am content to leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 01:04 PM

But has the GUEST who shared his or her opinion about Teribus given us the benefit of his or her views on any other matters? And in which posts? I mean, unnamed GUESTS on the Mudcat come in all political shades.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 01:15 PM

What does the politics matter McGrath? An opinion about someone is just that, and doesn't mean anything but what it says. It only matters as one opinion among many, which is to say, it matters only as much as you or anyone else chooses to have it matter to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 01:29 PM

What's the big fuss over a buncha dead sand niggers? Ain't like they're human.

God Bless America! (GregF, somewhere in this thread)

An opinion is just an opinion and doesn't mean anything but what it says???

Knowing Greg from his postings tells me that his post meant something entirely different from what its surface wording could mean (without the background knowledge).

That is but one reason why most of us prefer posts from a consistent handle.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 01:48 PM

Actually Wolfgang, I am not familiar with Greg F's posts in Mudcat. I also didn't look up his posting history here when I read his provocative comments in this thread, or in another thread the same day (can't remember which thread now), where he did the same thing.

I didn't need a handle to figure out that poster was using hyperbolic rhetoric to make his point in this instance. But I can appreciate your point that using a consistent handle makes it easier for others to determine each poster's communication style. However, just because the handle works as shorthand for some, doesn't mean that one can't suss out the communication tactics being employed by a specific poster, in a specific context, in a specific thread, with close reading too. I prefer to do close reading (most days) to understand what a poster means in any given post. I do acknowledge that some poster here, however, do prefer to use a poster's identity, rather than their actual words, to suss out the meaning of a specific post.

Vive la difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 01:51 PM

Precisely, Wolfgang - we know how to judge what weight to give to someone's opinions on one subject by the quality of their contributions on other topics. Otherwise it's just graffiti.

It's not a question of politics such, but of whether someone's arguments are coherent and thoughtful. The fact that I might agree with someone's politcal stance doesn't in itself mean that I necessarily have much regard for their judgement on other matters - and vice-versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 01:51 PM

Why are there so many more horses asses than there are horses?
Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 01:56 PM

Like I said McGrath (perhaps we posted at the same time) in my gross generalization above, there are roughly two sorts of posters on internet chat forums. Those who actually read the words closely and don't rely much on the identity of the poster, and those who rely almost exclusively upon the identity of the poster (ie the reactions they have to the words posted by someone using a consistent handle).

Different strokes for different folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 02:23 PM

And those who read the words, and judge what to make of them largely by whether the person identified generally says things that merit consideration.

And that applies whether it's discussions on the net, or conversations in a pub, or articles in the newspaper.

Imagine someone posting "I totally disagree what you said", in response to something I had written. Now, according to who says that, my reaction might be that I would feel reassured that what I had said did actually make sense, or it might be that I would start to question whether I had actually said something very wrong-headed.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 02:55 PM

McGrath, I mean no disrespect to you, but this sentence:

"And those who read the words, and judge what to make of them largely by whether the person identified generally says things that merit consideration."

is incomprehnsible to me. Could you reword it in a way that might help me understand what you are getting at.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 03:38 PM

"And those who read the words, and judge what to make of them largely by whether the person identified generally says things that merit consideration."

is incomprehnsible to me. Could you reword it in a way that might help me understand what you are getting at.

It means that random, unidentified comments from multiple people are the equivalent of comments yelled from the peanut gallery. The listener/reader has no way of judging whether that person might be being sarcastic or having a back day or a genius in their obscurity. Or imply yelling things because they like yelling.

It's the same reason why you might choose to listen (or choose not to) to the advice of a long time aquaintence, while not really paying a whole lot of attention to the comments of a random stranger on the street. In the former, you know why they might be making the judgement they are. In the latter, you have no way of knowing if they are even being sincere.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 03:54 PM

"It means that random, unidentified comments from multiple people are the equivalent of comments yelled from the peanut gallery."

I wouldn't be able to agree with that. There are multiple unidentified people who both contribute here, and who write anonymously in many forums and contexts, who can easily be understood, if those who read their words wish to understand them.

However, if one believes that no communication of value can take place when the writer chooses to remain anonymous, then it is true that such readers will not understand the writer. But that is the reader's choice, not the writer's.

There are always readers who will make a different choice, and engage with the ideas being presented. There is a core group of Mudcat members and guests who do so all the time, and who don't have the discomfort level some here have of reading messages from anonymous posters.

I do find it pretty amusing that those who so often choose to complain about or make an issue of a poster's choice to remain anonymous, already know which anonymous poster they are responding to when they complain about the anonymous poster coming into their presence. I do understand that there are some people who become very agitated in the presence of anonymity--and are, hence, reacting in their comfort zone when they complain. But it doesn't make their whining about guests choosing to post anonymously any less tiresome.

As I've said many times here, it isn't that difficult to tell anonymous posters apart if that is what some need to do to interact with us from a feeling of comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 05:27 PM

My only complaint about anonymous posters is that it is very difficult to have anything resembling a "conversation" when one doesn't know how many guests one might be attempting to converse with. ESPECIALLY given the history of certain periodic guests on Mudcat who are abusive and antagonistic.

I read anonymous posts, I simply usually don't bother to respond anymore because said guests are sometimes day visitors who won't be back and some are deliberately antagonistic. If you don't want to be considered a heckler, don't yell things from the safety of a crowd.

It does not remove one's desire to achieve anonymity by picking a consistent handle within a given thread, and refusing to do otherwise while expecting to have one's rude comments of a personal nature to another user taken seriously is simply impolite.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 06:16 PM

It's nothing to do with anonymity - everyone here is as anonymous as they choose to be. For example, I haven't a clue who Teribus is, or for that matter NicoleC.

But I know that I can reasonably assume that the person who came in as NicoleC just now is the same person as the NicoleC who posted previously, and the same for Teribus. I can't assume that for GUEST. Just click on that and see why. (You need to be a bit patient for the link to kick in.)

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 06:32 PM

By the way, just to be clear as to who is who, here (at least as far as possible with an indeterminate number of GUESTs posting), the GUEST who posted at 30 Jul 03 - 01:51 PM was not me. That was apparently cut-and-pasted, name and all, from a comment I made on another thread--another subject entirely. It's nice to know that my quotes are quotable, but I would just as soon not have something I said in one context quoted and then attributed to me in another context.

Just to keep the record straight.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 07:21 PM

This thread has now been officially declared meta-OT. Put away the anoraks and let it die!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 08:52 PM

What?   People are bored to tears, the summer doldrums are upon them, and members are feeling nostalgic for the Mudcat days of yore, when their favorite summer sport of engaging in flame wars against the anon guests was enjoyed by all. The nerve of you to suggest that they let it die!

BTW, Don Firth. I'm guessing the mystery guest at 1:51 is likely Guest pdq. He seems to have gone round the bend with his rants and antics of late.   Must be the shattering of his beloved war myths has hit him hard, as it has so many of the Bushites.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 09:02 PM

Well, danged! I stopped in here to see what's up with the other 50 or so sons of Saddam and here I find the usual "Guest/non-Guest arguement raging.... Geeze, somethings never change....

Ahhhh, anyone know anyhting about the other 50 or so sons of Saddam?

Jus' funnin' with ya all. Go on back to arguin' over the Guest thing...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 31 Jul 03 - 08:11 PM

I heard the US is going to stage a puppet play, to convince the
Iraqi people, that Uday and Qusay are dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's Boys
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 03 - 08:36 PM

Air-they Ead-day, Im-Jay!! Etgay Overway Itway!

A