Author Topic: Uday and Qusay (Read 1661 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:49:42 PM »

Ay-they Are-ay ead-day.

JBA · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:52:32 PM »

I’m putting in the first bid on Ebay for Uday's canes...JK;)

Gunthr · « **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:03:21 PM »

101st Airborne Screaming Eagles

~~And let it be a lesson to Uday and Quusay for not listening to their dad when he told them to split up~~

muckmaw · « **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:06:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SLO
no access too news right now.....

are they dead or alive?

Senior Defense offical says "90-95% sure" they killed Uday and Qusay.

What does this mean? Nothing until we get 100% confirmation, but it's a good sign.

WTG Screamin' Eagles!

Yeager · « **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:08:08 PM »

Why do we go around killing people. I thought we were the good guys....

MoMoney · « **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:13:17 PM »

Wouldn't you rather here that news about Osama Bin Laden ? I would..........

Gunthr · « **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:14:24 PM »

I would think these people were killed because they fired on the troops who were trying to capture them.

type_char · « **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:32:58 PM »

WTG would rather have them alive so they could interegate them but at least they got them.

miko2d · « **Reply #23 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:40:06 PM »

Uday and Qusay staryng in danger in Iraq instead of living elsewhere with their stolen billions does not match well the propaganda image of them as selfish un-patriotic cowards.

Of course massive amounts of automatic firearms in private posession of the Iraqi population and widely open borders did not match the propaganda image of a badly oppressed country either.

If the general american public were less incapabe of independent thought, the authorities would have had to conceal the fact that they killed Saddam's sons in Iraq and stage a fake operation elsewhere - nailing them in some french bordello would have been a nice touch.

miko

john9001 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 22, 2003, 02:09:42 PM »

miko , your words are in english , but i do not understand their meaning.

some bad guys are dead, as Martha would say "it's a good thing".

reports from bagdad say people are celabrating in the streets on the news Uday is dead.

muckmaw · « **Reply #25 on:** July 22, 2003, 02:15:06 PM »

I've got 6 years of higher education and I have no idea what you are trying to say, Miko.

I read 1 sentence that was a triple negative!

Are you using a piece of translation software, or is english your second language?

Either way, your point is not coming across.

funkedup · « **Reply #26 on:** July 22, 2003, 02:49:46 PM »

WTFG SCREAMING EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

muckmaw · « **Reply #27 on:** July 22, 2003, 02:53:32 PM »

Centcom "We are certain Uday and Qusay are dead".

Of course, he never said if it was Uday Hussein or Uday Johnson of Finkelstein, Iowa.

Reported on Fox news.

miko2d · « **Reply #28 on:** July 22, 2003, 02:57:54 PM »

john9001: miko , your words are in english , but i do not understand their meaning.
some bad guys are dead, as Martha would say "it's a good thing".
reports from bagdad say people are celabrating in the streets on the news Uday is dead.

I completely agree that the Hussein family are the bad guys. Theologically speaking, they are eligible for a spot in Hell just for volunteering to run a country.
They killed a lot of people, sure.

On the other hand we have to think on the margin here, not in general. Anyone capable of staying in control of a unified secular socialist Iraq would have been a bad guy and would have had to kill and intimidate a lot of people, so by selecting the "best" ruler we have to concentrate on relative badness, not absolute one.

Basically, whoever could kill the least number of people in iraq and still prevent a breakdown and civil war (resulting in much more deaths) would be the optimal choice.
Obviously, since it is very hard to estimate an exact number, it always pays for a ruler to be on the safe side and kill few thousands more political opponents than strictly necessary. This way one can be more sure of averting a civil war that would have cost hundreds of thousands dead, mostly innocent civilians remote from politics.

I am not so sure that having bad guys dead is always a good thing. I have been watching the post-colonial africa closely as well as other "liberated" areas.
Since the decolonisation and eviction of bad imperialist exploiters, they were killing bad guys non-stop, but the new leaders consistently proved even worse than their predecessors and harder on the population.

Ian Smith was considered a bad guy untill we knew Mugabe, Tito was considered overly harsh in running Yugoslavia untill we had the ethnic cleansing. Heck, even Tsar Nikolas the Second was considered a tyrant by many before Stalin came on the scene.

I see a lot of statements that Hussein killed too many people.
Our plans for Iraq are exactly the same as his - keeping it unified, secular and socialist.
I believe we will have to find out for ourselves how many people need to be killed in order to keep Iraq orderly and unified and out of hands of muslim fundamentalists.

I am far from sure that hoever succeeds in subduing Iraq, his totals would be much lower than Hussein's.

miko

midnight Target · « **Reply #29 on:** July 22, 2003, 03:03:30 PM »

Quote

Anyone capable of staying in control of a unified secular socialist Iraq would have been a bad guy and would have had to kill and intimidate a lot of people, so by selecting the "best" ruler we have to concentrate on relative badness, not absolute one.

Speculative fact?