Can’t find WOMD, but we did find Saddam’s sons.

Well this does make for a couple less truly bad people in the world:

Yahoo! News – Saddam’s Two Sons Killed in U.S. Raid

MOSUL, Iraq – Saddam Hussein (news – web sites)‘s sons Odai and Qusai were killed in a six-hour firefight Tuesday when U.S. forces, acting on a tip from an Iraqi informant, surrounded and then stormed a palatial villa in this northern Iraqi town, a senior American general said.

Four coalition soldiers were wounded and two other Iraqis were killed in the raid, but Saddam was not among them. The house belonged to one of Saddam’s cousins, a key tribal leader in the region.

“We are certain that Odai and Qusai were killed today,” said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez at a news conference in Baghdad. “The bodies were in such a condition where you could identify them.”

The deaths of the sons could have a major impact on the Iraqi resistance, which has been mounting about a dozen attacks a day against U.S. occupation troops. The guerrillas are thought to be former military officers and Baath Party leaders loyal to Saddam and his family—especially the sons, who played primary roles in the military and feared security services.

Looks like someone is landing themselves a $15 million dollar reward for helping out on this one. Cheap compared to the costs of most government programs.

[Listening to: Harry Belafonte – Jump In The Line (Shake, Shake, Shake Senora).mp3]

60 thoughts on “Can’t find WOMD, but we did find Saddam’s sons.

  1. It’s $15 million PER son.

    But they have to apply for the money, and will likely see little or none of it.

  2. A 6 hour firefight?  And they killed two people?  While taking 4 casualties?  Somehow those numbers seem a bit scewed somehow.

  3. They had the building surrounded. All they had to do was shoot in some tear gas and wait. Then we could question the sons on the possible location of Daddy.

    “The night before, an unidentified Iraqi had tipped off the Americans that Odai and Qusai were in the house, Sanchez said afterward. But all Sgt. George Granter knew on that blistering hot Tuesday morning was that intelligence was reporting the house was occupied by Baath Party members.”

    Perhaps the Brits were working Intelligence that day, and since they’d already burned us once, their information was automatically suspect. If any two guys needed to be taken alive, these two did. Check out these guys and their TOW missiles and high tech aircraft, not to mention their love for overwhelming shock and awe. Either we have some extremely cold-hearted soldiers and C/O’s who just love to play war or we’re not being told everything; I have to suspect the latter. Can anybody say “body double”?

    I find it highly suspicious to have happened on the heels of Bush’s mounting troubles over who to blame next for those now infamous 16 words and his subsequent decline in popularity polls. The only buck that stops anywhere near Bush is the opportunity buck.

  4. Is anyone else troubled by the hoopla being made over the deaths of these two assholes?  I know I’m being naive, but a country like ours should be above viewing state-level conflicts as personal vendettas against comic-book villains.  I certainly hope that the attacks on American soldiers will subside now that they have been eliminated, but its far from a sure thing. 

    A great question raised by Brock is: why were they killed rather than captured?  Wouldn’t you think that #2 and #3 might have a few pieces of information relevant to shortening the mess over there?

    Now it certainly wasn’t me creeping up on their position under fire, and in a situation like that, a few missiles would seem to be the better part of valor.  However, I would have thought that the chain of command might have devised some way for 200 special forces guys to apprehend four to six enemies without undue risk to our people (bribing? lying? valium gas?).  The two brothers might have supplied answers to many nagging questions.  But wait a minute, what am I saying… this is the administration that hates to have questions answered – and the cable news folks seem so excited by the fact that the “kids” are dead.

  5. Guys

    I am retired USAF and spent 21 years working on everything from 9mm pistols to “special” weapons that leave big smokin’ holes where cities use to be!  As a wise old boss of mine once told me:

    “No job is too big for the man who doesn’t have to do it”

    Think about it…

    Our troops surround the house

    They tell the occupants to surrender

    The occupants say “bite me” and start blasting

    Our guys try to go in and capture them

    Some of our guys get wounded

    Our guys decide it is better for the other guy to give his life for his country

    Our guys annihilate the occupants

    I think the fact that they had a six-hour firefight (and didn’t call in a flight of my beloved A-10 Warthogs to level the place) proves that they were trying to take these guys prisoner.  They could have also called in an F-117 to give them a 2,000 pound “enema” from 40,000 feet, but I never worked on those venerable aerial machines.

    No disrespect intended, but when I hear statements like Ken

  6. A good point and well made to boot. Although I would have liked to seen the Bad Boys of Iraq taken alive, I did kinda realize that the situation probably made that unrealistic after hearing how the firefight took 6 hours or so.

  7. Great quote…I may have to steal it. I once had a chief who said after my many hours of back breaking labor trying to sanitize our horrifyingly inadequate medical space “You can’t polish a turd.”. He was right.

    And so are you.

  8. But the question remains: Why weren’t they taken alive?

    We’re paying several butt-loads of money for these “big” jobs. Kinda makes you wonder how we won the main war so quickly if 150-200 soldiers, three (maybe more) Kiowa helicopters, several Humvee with TOW missiles and six hours were needed to kill four and wound two Iraqis. Again, we already had them surrounded.

    According to the White House we are no longer even in a war situation so war time imprecision doesn’t seem like a justified excuse here. Seems to me like you’re just saying “Don’t dare to criticize or question the military.” I mean no disrespect toward the soldiers whatsoever. My intent was worded to cast suspicion that it even went down the way we’re hearing.,BR>
    “The soldiers removed four bodies and did not let photographers take pictures.”
    Bush and Co. lied to us about reasons for going to war to begin with. Why automatically accept that the lying has stopped? Do you really think Bush cares very much about the Iraqis that were allegedly tortured by these guys? Ken is right in suggesting that we could have been less crude about their deaths.

    I think this story has several twists and turns left to be revealed.

  9. Les, you and Eric surprise me. What happened to that healthy skepticism you normally represent so well?

  10. Ok, why did they have such a hard-on to get in there? The place was surrounded. How long do you think it would take with little food, no running water?

  11. Without more details on exactly what the situation was it’s too easy to sit here and speculate. Do I think it’s awfully damn convenient for the Bush Administration that these two are dead? Yep, you bet, but Mild Bill raises a very valid point. If they had wanted to just kill those two outright it wouldn’t have been a 6 hour fire fight. Assuming the info about how long the fight lasted is true then it’s not unreasonable to think they were trying to take them alive. I’m sure The Shrub isn’t at all upset that they’re dead, but I don’t think that was necessarily the intended goal when the fire fight erupted.

    I’m willing to admit when people raise valid points even if it does go against my normal healthy skepticism. As for Eric, he’s ex-military so I’m not surprised it made sense to him as well. He’d know better than I would. Don’t worry, though, it’s not like I’m going to start swallowing everything I’m told.

  12. Ahhh, Information we do not have access to. Now that is a bit of a sore point with me. I can understand not revealing information that may get our troops killed or tip off the enemy and allow them to escape, but this administration does not believe in sharing any information from what corporate criminals they colluded with (cough – ken Lay who is still a free man) to create their energy policy to blanking out several pages on the “Final” report on 9-11 because it might offend our valuable allies the Saudi’s. I guess everything really DOES have a price, how much do you suppose it cost to have your complicity wiped out of an official report?

    The opacity of this administration is one of the most infuriating things about it; everything is a closed door meeting or a closed door investigation. Who in their right mind can believe a word they say when they won’t trust us enough to let us be participants in our own government? Who can believe a word they say since the whole WOMD debacle (great intel there)? If they had half a brain in the entire Whitehouse they would share some of these “secrets” that might explain just what the hell they were thinking. A lot of people have died since September 10, 2001 and all we know for sure is that we have a president willing to blame anyone other than himself. Come see the tap dancing secret squirrel…

    I wouldn’t believe Bush if he said the sky was blue.

  13. If they were guilty of torturing and murdering innocent Iraqis, Odai and Qusai deserved to die. That possibility was the reason I wanted a unified UN force to go into Iraq in the first place and investigate. But we were talking about at least two possibly oppositional justifications for war. Do we work as a team of compassionate countries to stop mass murders and bring suspected criminals to trial or do we splinter off and act independently to forcefully rid a country of it

  14. Mild Bill,

    I agree with your criticism of my previous message that identified that I was nowhere near the firefight we are discussing, and therefore would not share in any of the danger that might result from whatever strategy I might suggest.  In fact, I agree with it so much that I featured it strongly in the very message to which you were responding! 

    My point was just that I don’t feel that the killing of these two gangsters represents a military accomplishment worth crowing about.  On the contrary, it would seem to represent the intentional shit-canning of a great opportunity to acquire some very valuable intelligence – intelligence that might get our people out of harm’s way more quickly.

    I am extremely sympathetic to our troops (in fact, I wish they all had never set foot in Iraq!).  The fact remains, however, that each and every one of them volunteered for service, and hopefully understand that that sometimes means putting yourself in danger for the greater good.

    If two of the top three honchos of the Baath crowd didn’t have some sort of info that could shorten the war I will eat my birdshit-covered hat (a safe boast, since now we will never know).  There are any number of possible strategies and technologies that might have secured the brothers alive (once again, only for their information – if half of what we hear about them is true, they deserved to die).  But the entire operation seems to have been designed to result in two high-profile deaths that would play well in our increasingly redneck media.

    You critique Brock for suggesting that they might have been secured through a siege, indicating that this task would be uncomfortable and tedious.  I propose that it would, however, probably be far less deadly than the individual urban guard duty we’ve had our youngsters pulling since the war has been “over” and the tanks and Bradley’s have gone elsewhere. 

    I think that our leadership simply didn’t care what information these guys had – or anybody else, for that matter.  They know what they want to do, and it has no connection with the arguments they’ve constructed or the hardships that our troops are experiencing.

  15. Now that Eric, Brock, and Ken are done spanking your ass Wild Jill, it’s my turn! Well I guess the only thing left is the German WWII thing. First off compairing Roosevelt to Bush is damn near heresy! Smidging on the truth to save your allies asses is a bit different than lieing out your ass to invade a country for oil/political gain/vengance for daddy. How can you sit there and say the Hitler had no intention of flying bombers to the U.S.? ” The logistics would be hell ” Come on! How about the rocket engine or maybe the jet engine both made practical and useable by the third reich! The nazis were known for thier unorthodox tactics. Take Shock and Awe for example. Very unorthodox and brand new when it was called Blitzkreig!
    Now none of us are blaming the grunts for what happened! If those guys had a choice I doubt they would be there.
    As for “One should understand the thing he criticizes or his criticism is moot. You come of sounding like Rosanne Rosanna Dana (Gilda Radner from SNL).”. You are criticizing Brock and I Yet you know nothing about us! In short,BLOW ME BILLY!

  16. Mild Bill,

    Your misinterpretation of my statements must be intentional, because otherwise you seem to be generally literate.  You say that I wrote that I: “don’t have enough information to decide what course of action I would have taken yadda yadda…” 

    What I believe you are referring to is my statement in my first message in which I said that, if I were a grunt crawling into the fire coming from the brothers and their companions, I would feel that a couple of missiles into the building would be a good idea.  I countered this admission with the recognition that military objectives are determined by the chain of command, not those being shot at.

    As for non-lethal incapacitants in our arsenal, I’m sorry that your personal experience did not encompass the use of valium gas or other examples of canister-employed agents that can be delivered with the same ease and precision as tear gas.  If it had, you might concede that the approach taken was far from optimal from a tactical standpoint.

    As for the “redneck” reference, I was talking about the American media that serves up, in lieu of actual information, big ‘splosions and a series of Dick Tracy most-wanted bios on the leaders of our enemies.  If you like this stuff, then sure, you’re a redneck.

  17. Possibly one of the coldest most asinine remarks I’ve read at this site would have to be “From a military standpoint, the only reason any country exists is because the United States allows them to exist.” That one statement made me cringe. Mild Bill, don’t worry, you don’t come off as a warmonger so much as a headless, heartless bastard. Perhaps a little less of your type of emotion (which is shining through) and a little more of mine would have saved deserving lives in Iraq.

    The Bush War Machine reference wasn’t based on emotion, but rather on fact. He is, after all, the Commander and Chief of our armed forces, isn’t he? I, for one, think it’s the part of his job that gives him his biggest erection, although he still wouldn’t have to be anywhere near the actual danger.

    I don’t know if you have a chip in your brain Mild Bill, but it certainly seems that it has been washed thoroughly. I start to develop a negative affiliation with the military when people who are/ were in it say the things you’ve been saying. I’ve been reading other posts by you on other subjects and you seem to be quite generous in your considerations. I would even suspect you are relatively well adjusted. But here your demon is showing. Why is it that discussing war brings out the savage idiot in some?
    Oh, and aren’t concussion bombs standard military issue? But then they might only cause the ears to bleed.

  18. Damn, I’ve got a knock-down drag out fight going in my comments here. I think this is a first for SEB. Usually people are too busy flaming me to flame each other. grin

    For the record I’m definitely in the middle on this one as I think Mild Bill has raise some good points and yet I can also agree with many of Brock and Ken’s points. As wishy-washy as this sounds I definitely think the administration probably didn’t go to any trouble trying to push the idea these two should be taken alive and are better off that they’re dead. At the same time I think the soldiers did make an attempt at it given the resources and commands they had at the time.

    That said I think it’s a little pointless to cry over spilled milk at this point. I’m not happy about it, but there’s not a helluva lot that can be done about it so I’m moving on to the next outrage. grin

  19. This will be my last post on this subject since this is obviously going nowhere.  There seem to be some parallels to your reactions to my statements and fundamentalist Christian

  20. Not bad. It suffers a little in the originality department (I get that one all the time), but the enthusiasm and technique helps raise it up a bit. wink

  21. But the question still remains: Why weren’t they taken alive? Signed, Emily Latella

  22. Mild Bill,
    Speaking for myself, the emotional inflammation and offense is from the personal attacks. The FDR thing sounded like a compairison, if not, sorry. The German thing, You are 100% right, they did everything wrong! I was just saying that FDR’s speech must have seemed a lot more credible ( compaired to Bush’s) after seeing all the gee-wizz gadgets the Germans had. I don’t know about everyone else, but I can appreciate your perspective. It was your insults and belittling approach that invited backlash.

    Les, Sorry for the brawl. Next time I promise to keep it a little more toned down. By the way, ya got any buckets?(LOL)

  23. Not a problem, Jay. I wasn’t upset about the brawl, I was just amazed it wasn’t directed at me for a change. grin

    All things considered I think this one went pretty well. Sure it got a little personal, but at least folks were still trying to get their points across instead of just mud-flinging. All in all it was quite edifying to read.

  24. Questions:  Would people who have used chemical weapons on their own people be caught flatfooted & without protection from simple “knock-out” gas?

    How long would you have had them prolong the firefight in order to take them alive? 

    How many casualties of our own men was it worth to take them alive?

    Do you think that if they DID run out of food & water, they would have actually surrendered?

  25. Rouver and Mild Bill,

    As for the question of being caught flat-footed, I believe the Hussein Bros & Co. were equipped with AK’s and a matress to hide behind.  As for keeping American soldiers alive – valuable information that might have facilitated a shortening of our post-war war died with the brothers.

    Mild Bill,

    In your last message, Bill, you finally admit that it would have been better to catch the two alive.  You also correctly reiterate that a frontal assault might have cost American lives.  One more time: WHY NOT A SIEGE?  You previously countered this proposition with the observation that this would be hot and uncomfortable for those waiting it out.  NEWS FLASH – its hot and uncomfortable across the whole country!  Not only that, but we’re losing people at a pretty depressing clip over there – it hasn’t yet slowed down since the brothers were killed (one more Rummy prediction down the shitter).  Follow my logic here:  Maybe the Old Man is behind at least some of the resistance? Maybe his two sons could have provided some info regarding his location, or at least the nature of what organization remains? => Result: shorter time for our people in the Sunni Triangle.

  26. My remark from Emily Latella was a parting joke on the absurdity of the comparison in the first place and a final chance to ask the question that pissed Mild Bill of to begin with (why weren

  27. I’m not even going to answer Hilary…er…I mean Brock just yet smile


    When did I suggest that it wouldn’t have been better to capture them?  I don’t recall doing that.  All I said was we don

  28. Sure, they should have tried.  I just thought it wasn’t likely that gas-based weapons would have worked.  I thought pretty much EVERYONE was posting “if” sort of statements.  With the information we’ve been given, we don’t know what sort of equipment they had…high tech or feathers, as you suggest.  smile

    As far as laying seige to these people, you make it sound as if they were in an isolated area, where civilian casualties would be minimal (we have to keep in mind the image we project).  Here’s something to chew on with that in mind:

    “But not all Iraqis are pleased about the raid, which wounded a number of civilians. At least 1,000 people gathered outside the house in Mosul where Odai and Qusai died. Some were shouting in delight, some were cursing in anger. Others stood silently in mourning. “

    Likely a large scale attack on the house would have led to more civilian deaths.  In my opinion, they did the best with the information they were given.  I don’t know what standard equipment would have been brought into that scenario.  I doubt they bring “a little of everything”.  hehe

    Do any of us actually KNOW any marines?  (so we could ask what was the likely objective & orders)  Do we KNOW the attitude of the surrounding area?  It would be more helpful in our criticism of their tactics.  Perhaps a siege wasn’t feasable in that area the same way a siege wasn’t feasable in Somalia.  Would our men have to watch constantly for sniper fire from surrounding houses?  Suicide bombers?  There CAN be confusion on the battlefield, and it would have been worse if the brothers had managed to get away.  Why should we wait while THEIR reinforcements arrive?  It sounds like we caught them with relatively few supporters.  “Let’s wait ‘em out while sympathizers rally to them”  ?

    Ack, this got long, sorry.  I was going for short & simple.  smile

    …did Bill really start up a fight with the fundamentalist Christians on this one, too?

  29. Mild Bill,

    First, your denial of the landmark concession you made is spurious – your previous message said: “Rouver,…clearly it would have been more desirable to take The Boys alive, but…”

    As for your other points, and those subsequently made by Rouver, you are right.  None of us were there, and the “fog of war” promotes the unpredictable.  Of course the troops want to get home more than I want them home, but I suspect that someone up the chain of command is making decisions that do not seem conducive to these ends.

    In support of one of Brock’s assertions, I think its entirely feasible that the administration preferred to have Uday and Qusay dead so that their singing would not contradict our leaders’ unsophisticated smokescreens.  Rumsfeld is not only a vicious idiot, he is renowned as a micro-manager.  Similarly, Cheney is reported to have kept his fingers in the works to unprecedented degrees with the military under Bush Senior, and more recently with the CIA under June-bug.  Agents at CIA headquarters said it was spooky how much he was in their shit – and the result was the official White House promulgation of a pack of lies, when they knew it was a pack of lies!  Why should we think that they would change their ways at a time like this when their house of cards is so precariously balanced?

    Finally, I am hurt that you never equate me with honorable, capable and rational statesmen and women as you do for Brock.  Could you call me “Kucinich” once? Please?

  30. Seriously…is everyone who thinks that taking them alive was the ONLY route to go ALSO think this equates to hostilities ending earlier over there, and that now it is guaranteed to be longer, since we killed ‘em?  Just wanting clarification.

    …blech, run-on sentence…heh, but I’m not correcting it

  31. Rouver, can you spell MARTYRS? Well sure you can since I already spelled it for ya!

  32. Cool, I’ll take Sharpton!  He’s had a dodgey past, but now he’s speaking more truth than anyone out there (largely because he doesn’t have a chance).

    Bill, we’ve gone round on this one long enough and I grow weary.  This entire issue was, after all, only a small blip on the radar screen of corruption and oppression that we face with this crowd of Jesus-crazy (Bush and Ashcroft) and money-hungry (the rest of them) fascists we have in power. 

    PS – Rangel’s OK too.  He knows how to get more peace than you know what to do with…Draft the rich!!

  33. I’m all for that Ken. If they want to suck the life blood out of this country maybe they should have to shed a little too!

  34. I was just taking a poll.  We truly have NO idea if having killed them will extend or shorten hostilities over there.  I certainly don’t claim to know.  It *could* turn them into marters…mayoters…dang…what you said wink
    OR it could dishearten the enemy.  We really won’t know until the whole thing is over.  I can’t find the source, but I know I read where they had interviewed someone from the area, and he said he was disappointed they had killed them.  He felt they should have been tortured to a long, slow death, and had wanted a crack at them himself.  There IS great hatred for them, but as I showed before, there was also mourning for their deaths.

  35. You presume that every “volunteer” had a wealth of other options Mild Bill, did you ever stop to consider that they maybe DON’T want to be there but their other options are even more unpalatable? Ever stop to think that maybe they are just gambling that the current commander and chief won’t ship their sorry asses over seas to die in some god forsaken shit hole to protect the interests of his campaign contributors? Do you really think that I went into the military because I had a swell of patriotism that could only be quenched by fighting for the glory of my country? Fuck that noise! I had a dead end job with no health coverage and was sick of eating ramen noodles every other night supplemented with daily vitamins to stave off scurvy or rickets or whatever the hell else you get with vitamin deficiencies.

    Maybe the draft isn’t the best idea but letting the rich parcel out the country like it is their own private fiefdom is suicidally insane. let their kids die to protect our oil, let their kids die to increase our global influence, let their kids die in the name of patriotism because they sure as hell get more than their fair share of the spoils. Who are the rich? That’s just pathetic. Do you need to have someone run a study to tell you if you are wet when it is raining? Are you moist, damp, or perhaps there is a degree of wet that is still dry? When 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth that is fucking rich!

    You want to keep the status quo? Fine. All that shows me is that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Don’t worry, your precious money and status is safe, didn’t mean to scare you with any socialist rambling about inequity, put down the guns because the huns aren’t camped out on your lawn. But don’t sit there and tell me that the game isn’t rigged and that everyone has the same chances as everyone else in this country because it is a lie. And I am sick and tired of hearing it.

  36. Oh, and if you are going to attempt to cleverly belittle me by referring to me as Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangle, Karen Silkwood, or who ever else might make you feel superior go for the gold and really knock my socks off. I can’t wait.

  37. You double-dipped, posted twice before I could reply…I think that is a SEB faux pas old chap, an unforgivable breech of etiquette smile

    I was in the Air Force, as I stated earlier, for over 20 years.  I don

  38. When I said “draft the rich” I was being a little facetious, and was not intending to be taken literally.  I agree with Mild Bill that there is no fair way to make such a distinction in implementing a selective service system.  However, a general draft does bring the issue home to roost more so than does an essentially mercenary volunteer armed forces. 

    From a democratic perspective (please note the small “d”), we in this country are all equally responsible for our actions as a state.  Even though I have two soon-to-be eligible children, I would favor a general draft.  I feel that a draft forces citizens to actively take a position on what our government is up to one way or another:  either you suit up and serve, or ante-up with decisive refusal on moral/common-sense grounds, facing and fighting whatever legal repercussions ensue. These are both honorable options available to any free individual.

    There should be no wealth/class-based deferrals (student, professional,…).  The blatancy with which these loopholes were exercised were one of the main reasons for the “liberal” objections to the Vietnam-era draft to which Bill referred.  The poor and lower middle class were tired of watching G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, John Ashcroft, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Trent Lott, Antonin Scalia, Bill Bennett, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Ken Starr, and others easily dance out of a war that they and their families ostensibly supported.

    Of course, with the growing rift between rich and poor in this country, as clearly outlined by Eric, the odds would still be in favor of the wealthy for having their children escape danger.  Perhaps a war service-by-referendum would be most equitable – put military action up for direct vote, with “yes”s going straight to the front wink

  39. Actually you should know that speed limit on a given stretch of road even if unposted, at least that is what they told me in driver’s ed. If memory serves it is 25 in residential neighborhoods…actually screw my memory (I can’t rely on it to save my life anyhow) the following link will give you the Michigan State limits (your state may differ).

    Anyhow I know this isn’t about speed limits but is about the definition of “rich”. defines Rich as (among other things):

    Possessing great material wealth:

  40. Guys, guys, guys!  Your idealism is commendable.  I wish for some of the same things you do, but idealism has little practical application in the real world.  Example:

    The Constitution is the idealistically driven document that sets forth our philosophy for law in this country.  The law, however, is implemented through the United States Code and other statutes.  It would not be possible to use only the Constitution as the basis for law, because it is too general.  On the other hand, the US Code is absurdly detailed and specific.

    As Ken conceded, it would be nearly impossible to define who is rich.  Did having a draft in the past ever stop a President from sending in troops for dubious reasons?  Did it stop McKinley from sending in troops to fight the Spanish, who may or may not have sunk one of our ships, the Maine?  Did it stop LBJ from fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin incident?  Though the captain of the intelligence gathering ship, the Maddox, claims he was not attacked by North Vietnamese forces, LBJ insisted that he was attacked.  That was the start of that little excursion in Vietnam.  Now LBJ only had daughters from what I remember, so should we only allow Presidents, Congressmen, etc., to serve who have sons who could be drafted? 

    In the post-conscription era, Regan sent Marines to Lebanon, where several hundred were slaughtered by a suicide bomber, and then simply withdrew them.  George HW Bush was criticized for not sending troops to Somalia

  41. Whoa Eric, we posted at nearly the same time!  Excellent points.  Impressive calculations.  Boy, this sure is diverging from a discussion about Saddam’s “Hell-Spawn”!!! I’ll comment in detail later.

  42. Yeah, I was waiting for someone to reign us in for be WAY off topic wink I will cop to be an idealist…it’s how I escape the mundane horror of my reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.