You’re not asking a question, your stating an opinion. The answer is obvious. They represented 2 of the top 3 leaders of the old regime who wielded all the power. We are at war with that regime and they chose not to surrender. Aside from the fact you disagree with the war, what’s your point?
This isn’t a war against a single group, it is a war against numerous organizations who are loosely aligned with a common goal. If you believe in their goal than just say so.
Odd thing about that “majority of the contributors” thing, Millum, don’t you think? In a board devoted to skeptical intelligence and simply oozing with smart people? How does such a thing come to pass, that the “majority of contributors” are of a generally like mind on this and related issues?
Are we all zombies under radio mind control from left wing college professors? The naive and credulous dupes of a liberal media?
Or is it simply we can recognize the thunderingly obvious? Things like an erupting volcano or an elephant doing a mambo, that simply cannot be ignored. Sure, we’re a pretty smart bunch, but we wouldn’t have to be, no challenge in a short-bus crossword puzzle.
Dear goodbuddies tomndebb, your estimation of my contributions to this thread are not within the delimitation of judgement, unless, of course, you hold some *Straight Dope *office that I don’t understand.
Opinions, don’t you know, are essential to debate.
Wanna bet?
___________ 
Gee, elucidator, if being in the majority makes you right, then Baywatch must be the greatest television show ever produced.
C’mon, 'luce. You remember when The Master told us of this damn fool war, don’t you? Get with the program, comrade.
Well, I’m one anti-war liberal who thinks this likely will make a difference – at least over the next six months or so – and I hope it does. May those two rot in hell.
There’s something about the recent attacks that has seemed a bit too organized. The tactics always seem to be a variation on two themes: 1) rocket propelled grenades and small arms and 2) remote controlled bombs. I wouldn’t expect an “organic” guerrilla movement to be so sophisticated at this point.
I think it is plausible to suggest these two thugs were behind a good chunk of the attacks, using their father’s money. Some of this was likely planned before the war, so their direct involvement at this point could be kept to a minimum. My gut says the attacks will continue for the next couple weeks and then start to tail off (though I doubt they’ll ever stop completely as long as we’re there).
The bottom line is a resistance movement can’t be sustained on fear alone – and fear is all Saddam and sons understand.
On the other hand, if the attacks do continue at the current pace (even after Saddam is captured/killed), then we’ll know something more is going on. Then we’ll truly be in some deep shit.
It’s also possible that, as the memory of Saddam and sons begins to fade and the reality of occupation takes hold (assuming things don’t improve significantly for the average Iraqi) a true resistance movement will emerge. Again, deep shit.
I keep wondering what we’ll be saying about Iraq a year from now.
The first is a legitimate question, the second is more than silly.
They were, indeed, the 2d and 3d most powerful persons in Iraq with specific organizational control over the Guard, the Fedayeen, and the Intelligence groups. The Fedayeen were used in much the way that Haiti/Duvalier used the Ton Ton Macoute to terrorize the populace into submission. They were ostensibly volunteers to “assist” the army, but their job was purely political and they were armed by Hussein and his sons.
Beyond that, Uday is noted as a sadist who has engaged in torturing persons, both individuals and groups, purely for sport, not even as political “demonstrations.”
They were not simply Saddam’s spoiled brats, but were powers in their own right who inflicted suffering on their fellow citizens and played an active role in the suppression of the Iraqi people.
Why yes, I do hold an office (that you clearly do not understand). I am a participant, unlike the office you hold which is one of carping without actual participation. I make no judgement of your posting, limiting myself to making factual observations.
Key word in bold:
What we lack evidence of is whether they continued to be much of anything after they went into hiding. Unless they were extremely reckless about their own self-preservation–and the Husseins have been noted for their self-preservation since lord knows when–they would have had a difficult time commanding anything at all. I await any evidence that they were involved in any way with the current attacks on American forces, other than in a vague “Go get 'em, boys!” sorta way.
Dear** Mr. elucidator**,
I’ll admit that “smart people that simply “ooze” with intelligence”, scare me.
No lucid, not because you all are self-assumed intellects beyond common understanding.
But because you all fear truth.
And that is why loving you folks makes me feel so sad.
Hold me, 'luci.
Not quite, Milum. I don’t “fear the truth”.
We are a nation of sheep being led by jackals.
I fear that is true.
See the difference?
won’t be missed by many people who actually knew them.
The Addams Family is better adjusted.
You mean they were psychopathic assholes who answered to nobody? Wow, I had no idea.
Now, what would you suggest “are the future ramifications” of their entirely deserved deaths?
Hey ! You try keeping a house clean with all that damn sand blowing around.
I’m not sure how these guys were any of the business of the US unless they were threatening the US military now, or did so in the past. We have no information about them threatening or harming US interests or citizens in the past so, are why are they now “Most wanted” for what; what is that they are alleged to have done against the US to make ‘em Numero Two and Three on the Chart ?
So my point, ** tomndebb**, is that what they did or may have done during Saddam’s rule is a matter for the Iraqi people or an international court a - matter the new democratic Iraqi Administration can address.
What happened today, if the light I describe is valid, represents a murderous PR job by the Administration cos they sure as hell knew these guys wouldn’t let themselves be captured. It’s a Beach Boys moment.
And besides me, I’d guess the question might cross the minds of about 1.3 billion Muslims and Arabs.
The Admin is committed to the notion that the insurgents are Baathist holdouts or somesuch. No proof is offered, that I have seen. I suspect they are a nativist bunch, resentful of US occupation, as evidenced by the recent news of volunteers for an Islamic militia. Beyond that, however, neither have I any proof.
An affinity for small arms and rocket propelled grenades would fit perfectly well with a population with a very high percentage of military veterans. So that proves nothing.
Has anyone seen any evidence as to whether one, the other, or both of these dismal conjectures is true?
Noted.
I already mentioned and several cites have suggested this will have a significant effect on whatever Baathist resistance there is. As everyone has noted, it remains to be seen what group or groups carry out the attacks on US troops. If I had to guess I’d go with mostly Baathists, some soldiers, foreign fighters, Iranian agents, Syrian agents, and probably more.
This is one critical step in unraveling the regime, which I recall GWB might have mentioned a few hundred times, something about “change.”
It is strange to watch people downplay the significance of this as nothing of importance. I haven’t seen any experts that agree with that opinion, yet. It’s early. Who knows if they are even dead? I haven’t seen the bodies, DNA, or dental records.
The prudent course in the current situation is to presume, since the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen disappeared, rather than surrenduring en masse, that they took their weapons and went home–taking their chain of command with them. Perhaps they truly did simply desert their posts and disband. However, barring evidence of that action, assuming that is a poor way to approach the situation.
Similarly, while the U.S./U.K. may, indeed, be in Iraq outside of international law, we currently are the effective police force in the country. For the new regime (whether democratic or puppet) to be able to pass judgement on the Husseins, they must be in custody. To simply permit them to wander around the nation for a few months or a couple of years while Iraq establishes a legitimate government would not be an appropriate action. There is overwhelming evidence that the Husseins are guilty of heinous crimes and not apprehending them would not be morally justified. Now, it is probably true that they never had any intention of being taken alive. Is that supposed to be a justification to allow them to roam the countryside? I would guess that the U.S. command would have preferred to take them alive, simply to see if we could get them bragging in the hopes that they would give us evidence of WoMDs or lead us to daddy Saddam.
As the de facto authority in the region (even if illegitimately), both the probability that they could lead a remnant of the Ba’ath party against our troops and the fact that they needed to be apprehended to face Iraqi justice placed a burden of taking some action on the U.S. once their location was identified.
But of course. I have never suggested that action should not have been taken against the Hussein Boys. Rarely in the course of human history have two persons needed killin’ so badly. I celebrate their well-deserved deaths, just like the Iraqi citizens firing their weapons into the air (and, of course, the occasional Florida National Guard unit that wanders into view).
The question, however, is what effects their deaths are likely to have on the future course of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. That depends on what, if any, control they had over the guerilla forces attacking Americans and Iraqi collaborators, not to mention the motives of the insurgents themselves. I am not optimistic that their deaths will have any significant impact on either count, for the reasons previously identified.
Who did say that Saddam would never be captured alive?, a trial would be very unpleasant for the USA; and the same applies to his sons.
As for the OP, yep it will have some degree of relevance, but on the grand scheme of things it´s not such a decesive event. Iraqi people should be indeed very relived that the Saddam Boys are gone, that´s what would yield the best profits, not their supposed backstage managment of the guerilla attacks.