Al, as you'll note from the following article, these killings, if they even got the Hussein boys, have done nothing to quell the insurgency:

here

Holy fucking hell. It's not enough to murder them, they have to get photos to prove they did the unforgivable deed? These people aren't fit to lead anything.

The only moral thing to do is to IMPEACH Shrub and his entire terorrist crew.

Since the news was released, I haven't been able to eat or sleep. I am so disgusted and ashamed to have been born among people like these.

so move to a country where your leaders rape women, jail children, and murder at random. maybe you'll feel better about your national pride.

The photos aren't for us, they're for the people of Iraq to see that these two disgusting, horrible bastards have been removed from their concerns. Until the Iraqis have proof Saddam's entire regime has been quashed, they're not going to do anything to help - they remember well what happened in the first Gulf War when we didn't get Saddam, and how he tortured those who had helped the US and allies.

It's kind of amazing, Natalie, that you mind us killing these two, but seem to brush over the atrocities these two men themselves were personally responsible for (the one brother was known to have killed several people with his own bare hands,) and both were widely known for their brutatilities toward women. You really want to stand up for these guys?

The military came to lawfully arrest them, they didn't give up, they opened fire and wounded four US servicemen, the military gradually escalated the firepower until three were dead, they went in, the fourth was alive and still firing, they shot him. Sounds pretty rational, reasonable, appropriate to me.

These were the most sociopathic, brutal, irredeemable freaks imaginable, raised for nothing other than the murder, subjugation and brutalization of their "fellow" men, and in particular, women. Even the tiniest drop of sympathy is bizarrely misplaced.

And, unfortunately, because of widespread Iraqi/Arab mistrust, they had to be shown the graphic details.

End of story

Aren't you just a little curious at to why the U.S. just didn't surround the building, wait it out, and use every attempt to capture them alive before going in? Imagine the intelligence bonanza, and the pr coup of parading them before Iraqis and putting them on trial, never mind obtaining possible insights into the guerilla campaign and the location of Saddam. This is what a great many Iraqis would have preferred, by all accounts. It is also the classic strategy of any conquering government trying to build legitimacy among a distrustful populace.

I think the reason they didn't do it is because they know the two had little connection to the resistance, and because killing them would be the most effective way of whipping up a storm of jingoism in the U.S. to divert attention from Bush's troubles.

In addition, these two thugs most likely had keen insights into the U.S.'s behavior in the 1980s, when we sold Iraq the WMD precusors for use against Iran and provided other support. They also may have provided confirmation of Saddam's fierce hatred of and rivalry with bin laden, wiping out yet another phoney justification for the war.

In short, you are being played for a fool, as surely as any citizen of a dictatorship. As Orwell said, educated people in a democracy are often more susceptible to propaganda than their counterparts in a dictatorship.

Aren't you just a little curious at to why the U.S. just didn't surround the building, wait it out, and use every attempt to capture them alive before going in?

They were given the chance to give up and be taken into custody. I think the reason is because they weren't going to be taken alive. They think that Uday possibly committed suicide as it is, but since they were shooting and wounding our soldiers in a firefight, they died. Sometimes this is not a perfect world, sometimes you just have to take it as it really is and try to clean up afterwards. I seriously doubt that the soldiers on the ground being fired upon had any ulterior motives for killing them, they just wanted to come out alive at the end.

I know that you don't like President Bush, but really there aren't always ulterior motives for everything that happens in the world. Everybody said that Iraq had WMD and were working on nuclear program, even Clinton said it in 1998.

I know that our Politics tend to spin everything and you always have to question what they say, because they want to push their own welfare first, but sometimes you have to pick a side.

Personally I would choose Bush over Saddam any day of the millennium.

Tom: I brush over no such thing and see no reason why you would accuse me of something so heinous. My heart breaks over the atrocities committed by the Brothers Hussein and their horrid dad, just as my heart breaks over the atrocities committed by the Bushites. But I don't wish any of them dead. And the glee I am seeing and hearing everywhere -- not to mention the gruesome photos -- makes me physically ill. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. Better that than to be what appears to be your definition of good.

Andy: Why should I be proud of any manmade construct not of my making? Get real. But yes, I do have plans to move elsewhere.

Again, you're simply vomiting the Pentagon's version of events, a classic example of a literate person parroting crude central State propaganda. Even a North Korean would be embarrassed.

They would have preferred to take them alive, but what are you supposed to do when they don't give up and shoot back for hours? You give government "conspirators" far too much credit, life and battle aren't nearly that easily manipulated.

After reading this tortuously conceived connecting of dots that aren't even on the same plane, you call me the fool? I am continuously amazed at the ice cream castles people will build to make the world fit their rigid agendas.

If all they wanted was to kill the vermin, they would have just bombed the building to ash from the beginning. They risked the lives of soldiers in an attempt to take them alive, they escalated the firepower gradually, there's nothing else they could have done. There was no way they were going to just sit there and wait them out - what if they escaped, again? What if there were secrets ways out? Far too many variables - they did the best they could do.

People...this is war here...not a hostage situation at your local 7-11

I suppose that you aren't just parroting the "ultra-left" we have to win in 04 Democratic demagoguery mantra of the last several months? Is that what you want us to believe?

Puleeezze, I'm not that gullable!

If you would rather take the word of Saddam's group over Bush, that's up to you.

I would, however, like to know where you got your "information" from? How do you know that it wasn't just that way? How can you say what the soldiers were doing or not doing over there??? You can't, you weren't there. Even if you were you couldn't tell us what was going on in their minds at the time.... I really don't understand the position that the "Liberal's" position is the only position or you are a "hateful bigot", a "war mongering terrorist", or all of the other crap that comes out the of sewer crap hole of the DNC.

Maybe we should teach real history in schools instead of the made up fantasy crap they they push today.

Natalie: Being a pacifist isn't a bad thing, as long as you have other people willing to do the fighting and dying for you so that you can keep that right....

excuse me, but i have rights endowed to me by my creator, not by your government. i have them whether someone is trying to execute me for acting upon them or not. better dead than unequal. and no. i would prefer that you folks did not fight and kill. how convenient -- you play your murderous games and then tell me i must be grateful. what codswallop. was is immoral. always. no exceptions. YMMV, but then mine varies from yours and i ain't buying the swill you're selling.

Comment 10: Again, you're simply repeating the Pentagon's version of events, as relayed by the servile U.S. media. The foreign English press-British, Asian-Australian, South African-has been telling a more nuanced story, using its own correspondents on the ground.

But suit yourself

Comment 12: It's "Saddam's people" vs. "Bush's people"? Even Al isn't that simplistic.

Jeez. How lame.

Like I said, freedom does come at a cost. Whether you are willing to pay for it or not. It doesn't change the price..... Am I speaking slow enough for you?

Your freedom to have your views have been given to you by our creator, but there are people that are always trying to take it away..(you can insert "bad guys" here).

I'm only saying, you can exercise that right because of the people fighting and dying to protect it for you. Whether it goes against what you believe or not, the truth is the truth... It could be the police officer on the street that is trying to protect you from the robber, mugger, rapist, murderer or it could be the military. It could even be the fireman trying to rescue someone from a burning building started by an Arsonist...someone else is willing to pay the price to keep you hiney safe... Yes, you should be grateful (at the very least) instead of being the "high and mighty, I'm so much holier than thou, pure virgin" that you think you are.

Mike: Almost as lame as your constant conspiracy theory... really, there is medication available.......

Natalie, I'll take the "was" in "was is always immoral" to mean war. Let me ask you something. What do you think is more immoral? To sit on the side lines and watch a man like Hittler kill 6,000,000 people and counting when you have the power to do something to stop him...or waging war to stop him? Tell me where the immorality is in that situation(whic I realize is not fully relevant, and some would argue not relevant at all, w/ the situation in Iraq).

cause in my mind, if you have the power to stop something like that and you don't use it, you might as well be doing the deed yourself.

Why isn't it relevant? Because he only killed hundreds of thousands instead of millions??? It is relevant, we didn't go into Iraq because they were a peaceful nation....

Mike-
You're right! We've obviously failed because things haven't undergone a 180 degree change in less than 48 hours. In another post (If you're nice, I'll tell you how to make clickable links!) you were saying how we didn't get them, now, you're developing a nifty conspiracy theory that is pretty lame even by your own ridiculously low standards of believability. Doesn't consistency count for anything? Cleopatra wasn't the only Queen of da' Nile.

Actually Debbie, best estimates for deaths from the Hussein regime start around at least 1 million, varying upwards to perhaps 2 million.

The Bush administration is indeed butthole deep in a vast conspiracy. Dubya, Ashcroft, Rummy, et al are conspiring right this very day while we confer so amicably here at Blogcritics. They conspire by hook and by crook to knock down any evil thugs anywhere in the world who are or seem likely to be trying to kill us.

What evil bastards they are. They should be impeached and removed from office right away, lest America and the world become a safer place.

Joe, why do you keep running off the cliff like this? I feel like the Road Runner. In my post, I was skeptical but also stated that if it was true, they were stupid and helpless beyond belief, which they were, as the Patrick Cockburn link argued.

Beep! Beep!

Mike-
Most people who read your posts also associate you with a cartoon character, so your point is?

GO HERE for the CNN story with the actual pictures of the Hussein boys. Look for the box labeled "US GOVERNMENT PHOTOS" to get the pop up box with the pics.

Looks like Uday in particular had a very bad day.

Allow the extraordinary Mr. Raimondo to set you prowars straight.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

So this is about finishing off "soft Marxism" forever? How foolish of me not to spot that.

Debbie, IMO, the only moral thing is to work for peace through nonviolent means. Grateful for the death brigade? I think not.

And you can speak at whatever rate of speed you choose, sweetheart. I would recommend picking up the pace, in fact, as it might engage your heart.

Natalie, I admire the purity of passivism, but how do you deal with violent oppressors? I have never heard this explained by passivists, and once you start making self-defense exceptions, doesn't the whole thing kind of fall apart?

Jesus had an answer for that one: "Turn the other cheek."

Worked for Gandhi and King. One could say in response, "Yeah, it worked really well -- they're dead." Yes, they are, and better off. They died courageously living up to their principles. That strikes me as the only honorable way to live. As Dr. King said, a person not willing to die for what he/she believes is not fit to live.

Passive resistance and nonviolence are the only moral models for dealing with violence, IMO. And I don't make exceptions for self-defense.

but even Jesus resorted to violence, and God used violence COUNTLESS times in the OT. Now I know the arguements that that was the "old covenant", but while the covenant changed, God didn't, and if God knew that violence was a neccissary means for governments then, He knows it now too. The world is in a fallen state, and passivism only works in a perfect world.

Natalie: "Sweetheart" does that mean that if you are in the middle of being attacked by a mugger/rapist/murderer that you are not going to call for help????? You are not going to want someone to come to your rescue or do you just simply lay down and take it?? Do you want to have Police officers that take on bad guys or do you think that the meanest person should just rule with impunity because no-one should ever fight back??

Once again, I say, there is a price to pay for freedom..... just because you are not paying it does not make the price any cheaper. It's fine that you don't want to be a part of the "death machine" (really, maybe you could see a therapist..) but somebody has to be willing to step up to the plate and protect your hiney... Yes, I thank the good Lord for them every night. I am thankful that someone is trying to keep me and my family safe.

Just because you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that there aren't any evil people in the world, does not make it so. I truly wish that it was so, but that won't happen until after the second coming... so we have to make do with what we have in this lifetime.

Just because I am not willing to become a victim as quietly as you are does not make me a hateful person.

Just how do you work for peace thru non-violent means if the other side doesn't want to??? How do you work for peace or safety thru non-violent means with people like Saddam, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or even with the likes of Manson, Bundy, Dahmer or Gacy? How effective was negotiation with these people? I don't know how to tell you this, but there are some people that are just evil, and no amount of begging, negotiating, pleading, reasoning is going to deter them from thier sick pleasure of torturing and killing people. It isn't until they are faced with force that they can be put under control. How much good did it do to appease Hitler? Did he quit comitting the atrocities because Chamberlain said we'll let you keep this country but please don't attack any more???? Even a pacifist has to see the truth that evil people don't have the same concience, caring, and respect for other lives.

To tell you the truth, I wish I could be more of a pacifist.. but after spending 10 years as a Deputy Sheriff I just can't forget that there are some truly evil people in the world. (I know I use the word evil quite a bit here, but there aren't very many adjectives that I feel comfortable printing here that would really describe the flat out, worthless pieces of manure that roam the streets and prey on decent people like yourself. But unless you've dealt with them it is hard to believe that people are that way.)

My understanding is that God moved away from being violent because it was wrong. And Jesus used violence that I know of once, which I attribute to his human state. His primary message is that of love and nonviolence, and it makes sense to me to go with his primary message rather than one horrid aberration. And you know what God knows now? Are you Betty Bowers? :)

Well, I can't agree that pacifism is the answer either. The best way to think of war is as a vaccine; a very small amount is sometimes needed to ward off a malignant host; but even a little too much can make things catastrophically worse. That is why aggresive wars fought to "make the world safe for democracy" fail without exception. World War I produced Bolshevism and Nazism. World War II was necessary to ward off the malignant fascism bred by the first war. There were a handful of other defensible wars but they were few and far between.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Ok, now I'm not sure if you're a Christian or not, but if you are, are you actually saying that Christ "sinned" or that God is even capable of doing wrong? What about the verse in the NT that states that God gives governments the right to rule by the sword?

"And the glee I am seeing and hearing everywhere ... makes me physically ill."

ditto.

(The Theory's only comment here)

peace.

hey Jacob I brought the "More Soul Than The Pits of Hell" shirt for you hehe

Yikes, Natalie. I'm curious just as Debbie is..

You're against all forms of violence. You don't make exceptions for self defense cases..

How would you deal with an attacker? Someone breaking into your home, trying to ravage you and your loved ones? Just let them do as they will? All in the name of pacifism?

Would you not have the self respect to fend off a rapist, even if you had to (god forbid) hurt him in the process?

You're not making sense. You need to think with your brain, and feel with your heart. I don't see much of the logical side of things coming into your arguments.

"My understanding is that God moved away from being violent because it was wrong."

Are you serious???? You really are "holier than thou" to think that God was wrong.

"And Jesus used violence that I know of once, which I attribute to his human state. "

Don't you understand that the whole concept of the christian religion is that Jesus is our savior. The only way that he could be our savior is if he is the "lamb", the unsullied, the totally blameless, the pure. A guilty person could not atone for our sins. Only a truly "innocent" with no sin on his head could pay for our sins...thus the only reason Christ came to earth to begin with.

Natalie: "They died courageously living up to their principles. That strikes me as the only honorable way to live. As Dr. King said, a person not willing to die for what he/she believes is not fit to live."

So do the Police officers, firemen and military soldiers...

Debbie, I'm not sure if Natalie's a believer or just someone who holds true to the peaceful teachings of Christ. hard to say from her posts, but if she is a believer, it appears that she's coming from a liberal anabaptist point of view(modern mennonite, COB, ect), where as I am coming from a full Reformed Calvanist point of view. But I do know some of what she's saying is like what the modern anabaptist "theologians" are preaching. To me, it's nothing but heracy, but I'm not gonna engage it further debate simply because I get too heated and nasty on the topic.

Ok, I have no links for this only what I have learned. But the "turn the other cheek" comment may have become divorced from the cultural understanding of the time Christ lived and teached in. Short version, and there admittely conflicting interps of this, but turning the other cheek was considered a provactive act because you were essentially saying it didn't mean a thing to you that you had just been struck. Turning the other cheek is not a passive act but a defiant one.

Also, Christ's anger in the Temple with the Money Changers is generally regarded as a "righteous anger" and therefore his acts were consistent with the Character of God.

Ok, the comments section here are probably not a good place to get a good theological discussion going, but those are my two cents.

No, this is certainly not the place for a deep theological debate. Especially when disagreeing with the majority nets one suggestions to "get therapy" or accusations of not being "logical."

A couple of things, though:

1. I was raped many years ago. I have also been held up at gunpoint. No, I did not use violence. Better to pray for my attackers, which I do regularly to this day.

2. I disagree with the violent who are living up to their principles by engaging in violence, but I certainly respect them for living up to what they believe. It's a shame that doesn't happen in reverse.

3. Not participating in violence does not mean one is blind to it or hiding from it. Never have I said that doing nothing is a good thing -- in fact, doing nothing is the same as doing violence. What I recommend and do is the same thing Gandhi and King recommended and did -- standing up to the violent through civil disobedience and passive resisitance and speaking out against hate and violence in all its forms. As Albert Einstein said, it takes more courage to fight violence with nonviolence than it takes to join in and/or condone the violence. I definitely spend my life fighting -- my weapon of choice, however, is love.

Peace in. I'm out.

You hear all this stuff about how wrong it is to feel joy over the deaths of such as the Hussein boys. That sounds right maybe, largely because we're raised in the culture to Christianity.

I disagree, however. I think it is perfectly natural and healthy to feel joy at the death of your enemies. These guys were monsters, and I make no apologies for being happy that they are good and dead. The world is a little bit better place.

Fisk, in the Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=427600

"The Americans followed a grand Iraqi Baath party tradition by showing their dead enemies on television yesterday. Back in 1963, when Abdul Karim Qassem's corpse was shown on the screen, there was no colour television and the executed prime minister Baathists and army officers had jointly condemned him to death appeared in black and white, propped up in a chair but very, very dead."

Yes, and unfortunately due to the current culture we had to do the same thing to convince the populace of their demise. When in Rome...

So we're just like the Baath party because they showed dead bodies and we've shown dead bodies? That's so silly. Exactly WHO we've killed and displayed, and WHY makes a big difference.

I think the issue here is that Iraq is a society the U.S. doesn't understand at all, and we don't often grasp how Iraqis will perceive actions, no matter how well-intentioned.

According to the journalist Patrick Cockburn, who spent years in Iraq, wrote a book on Saddam and has been pretty even handed and objective in his reporting (he was an agnostic on the invasion), Iraq is one of the most dangerous and violent places on Earth, far different even than most other Arab societies. He says this is one of the reasons why Saddam came to power in the first place.

There's also Anthony Cordesman, a hawkish heavyweight in DC, who wrote a memo for the GOP last year warning that the invasion would be easy but the aftermath catastrophic. You can google it; it's chilling.

In addition, reading between the lines of stories hitting the Washington Post and other papers tonight, it appears that Paul Bremer has essentially quit (my interpretation, but it comes through pretty clearly in the Post article), and that the U.S. is now looking for a "James Baker" style figure to "assist" him.