Arken

I think it actually totally skirts around the issue. He seems to be saying 'maybe we should ask questions here but I don't want to because they were bad people and they're dead.'

Well I agree. They were bad people and they are (maybe) dead too... but that doesn't address the issue of why they weren't taken alive. The whole 'they could have killed one of us!' crap doesn't wash for many reasons stated in this thread. If that was the primary concern, then they should have bombed the house from above which would ensure total annihilation of the occupants. The whole thing still makes no sense.

The SwampThing

You ended up answering your own question.
It´s pretty obvious to anyone with a few basic notions on combat operations, that the team going in is not the one who shoots and provides the diversion.
While one team waits by the entrance, the other team fires the grenade launcher thru the windows (even if they are borded up, the grenade launcher can open a hole for the grenade to slip thru), getting a few tear gas and flashbang grenades inside.
While the ocupants are busy scratching their eyeballs out and feeling dizzy, the other team breaks down the door and swiftlly eliminates the opposition. Wether with lethal, or non-lethal methods.
If they wanted to retrieve them alive, they could have done it in a snap.
Either the field commander was a total imbecil, or they just didn´t want to bother with a few iraqi lives...
It´s easy to stand out of range of the ocupant´s fire, and calmly press a few buttons firing a dozen TOW missiles.

But there´s just one thing: even after a chopper raid, a few hundred rounds of .50 cal, a few R.P.G, and 10 TOW missiles, there was still a guy alive inside, wich opened fire when the team went up the stairs! All that firepower, to get at a couple of men, a young boy, and a crippled old man!
Wich proves beyond any doubt, that brute force makes a poor substitute to inteligent thinking!
And guess who has to pay for all that spent ordenance?
Having a few Molly Maguires dressed in uniform, carrying big guns and running amock, is not the smartest way to conduct warfare.
It never was, and will never be.

satanka

Could it be possible that the two brothers didnt want to be taken alive? That wouldnt be the first time in war or outside of war that someone decides a fight to the death is better than being captured alive. There have been many incidents where an individual or a group of fanatics have no intention of being taken alive.

satanka

Before all that firepower was ever brought to bear, there was a knock on the door and an announcement to all the occupants to give themselves up peacefully.
Eventually the incident spiraled into a full blown fire fight when the occupants answered with weaponry.

If the military had no intention of taking them alive, why did they take so long to use the TOW missiles? The second floor was fortified and had double pane, bullet-proof glass.

Arken

For the umpteenth time, if they didn't want to be taken alive, they still could have been through the use of all sorts of non-lethal methods.

donaldkilroy

Have you personally ever been in any kind of armed conflict where you were trying to take someone alive who didn't want to be taken alive? Do you have some sort of degree or specialization in armed military tactics we should know about?

If you say yes to either (or both) question(s), then by all means detail for us what these "all sorts of non-lethal methods" of capture are while taking as little to no coalition casualties as possible.

If you say no to any of these questions, then it's clear you're merely speculating on something that you have little to no comprehension of.

Arken

So either I have direct experience or I have little to no comprehension? Come on. That's ridiculous. No, I don't have personal experience but I have read enough about police/hostage tactics, how Noriega and Marcos were taken out, etc. not to mention a basic understanding of the laws of physics to know that it isn't difficult to, say, throw some tear gas bombs into a house and enough about the way the military works to know that these people would not have been killed had there not been an order to do just that from high up.

donaldkilroy

Really? I see...so all things being equal (this is an analogy to illustrate my point) you're telling me that just because you've taken your car into the shop and listened to mechanics describe what's wrong with your car enough times that the next time you take it in you'll be able to tell them what's wrong with your car and how to repair it, right!?! Even though you're really not an automotive repair technician, you've still heard it enough times from various mechanics and perhaps read a few repair manuals and consumer reports to have what you would call 'a basic understanding' of automotive repair to know that it isn't to difficult to diagnose and dictate to another how to repair your car, right!?!

Thanks for admitting that you're merely speculating.

Wow...you've read book and a few anecdotes. So that makes you enough of an expert to make such affirmative arguments (as if they were fact) without actually being there or even having similar personal experiences that would validate such arguments? Yeah, okay...

If you don't have any personal experience, as you just admitted, then you do not know enough about how the way the military works. A book cannot tell you everything there is to know, especially when certain circumstances and situations are completely unpredictable (like armed conflicts). And without first hand knowledge (i.e., personal experiences, etc.), all you can do is speculate.

Majestyk

Come on now. This is the PD forum. No one is expected to have knowledge and real world experience of a subject in order to form, espouse, and adamantly adhere to opinions on such. This is where extrapolations of speculation formed from innuendos based on hearsay is presented as factual evidence.

Get with the program.

BDS

All anyone can do is speculate, whether he has first hand military knowledge or not. After all, nobody tried to take the Hussein brothers alive, so nobody knows whether we could have or not.

Based on donaldkilroy's argument, we ought never have any President that wasn't an infantrymen, because he would be utterly incompetent in his role as Commander and Chief. That's ridiculous.

By the way, plenty of people learn to fix their own cars by reading books.