For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't really need to make an argument for assassination. The argument is from history. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Nobody can absolutely claim that it would have worked in this case, nor can anybody claim that it absolutely would not have. Since it wasn't tried, we'll never know.

The same goes for the sponsored uprising option. History is full of examples of such things arising from similar situations being successful. It is also full of examples of such things failing.

History is full of examples of winners in war, and of losers.

It's all in the planning.

The difference between me and my opponents on this (and other) threads, is that I'm not trying to claim that any other alternative would have worked. I'm claiming simply that they could, and probably should have been tried. Conversely, some of my opponents are making the claim that such alternatives absolutely would not have worked, but just as with me, they lack the experience or authority to objectively make such a claim.

An even greater example of silliness, though, is your rejection of what ACTUALLY DID work.

 

[Nightwish]

You questioned Hobbit's weight of an opinion based upon his training or education.

No, I questioned the weight or authority of his opinion as a supporting argument for an objective claim that he made. If you want to state that something is your opinion, then supporting that claim with an opinion is just fine. But he didn't do that, he stated catagorically that none of those things could work. If you make an objective claim, you're expected to back it up with facts and authority, not just opinion. That's common knowledge and common courtesy, regardless how long you've been a member of the board.

 

[Nightwish]

An even greater example of silliness, though, is your rejection of what ACTUALLY DID work.

Is it silly to suggest that although that tactic did work, that it was a hasty tactic, and that other tactics might have worked in a much less costly manner? It's your civil duty to question such things, not to just blindly walk in lockstep with the majority party line.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, I questioned the weight or authority of his opinion as a supporting argument for an objective claim that he made.

...based upon his education and training.


you've got the "I didn't say that" disease that so many libs seem to suffer from.

 

[Nightwish]

...based upon his education and training.

In the field for which he's claiming objective authority. Would you turn to a grocer for expertise in surgical techniques? Would you turn to a baseball player for expertise in auto mechanics? Would you turn to a rock singer for expertise in ancient history? Certainly, all those people are entitled to opinions of those topics, but unless they have specific experience and/or training in those topics, you would be foolish to consider them an authority.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In the field for which he's claiming objective authority. Would you turn to a grocer for expertise in surgical techniques? Would you turn to a baseball player for expertise in auto mechanics? Would you turn to a rock singer for expertise in ancient history? Certainly, all those people are entitled to opinions of those topics, but unless they have specific experience and/or training in those topics, you would be foolish to consider them an authority.

So you admit it. You're challengin his opinion based upon his education and training.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Is it silly to suggest that although that tactic did work, that it was a hasty tactic, and that other tactics might have worked in a much less costly manner? It's your civil duty to question such things, not to just blindly walk in lockstep with the majority party line.

mighta, shoulda, coulda, woulda... Keep on talking like this. Your pathetic party will never win again. Get over it.

 

[Said1]

Hobbit does have military training of some sort. The extent of which I forget, but still, more than toi.

 

[Gunny]

Your opinion is duly noted. And the moment you obtain a degree or advanced training in military strategy, it will be worth something. Until then, your opinion that those tactics absolutely would not have worked carries exactly as much weight and authority as the opens of those of us equallly unschooled in military strategy who believe they may have. And your comments about the assassination option are about as feeble an argument against it as I've seen yet.

I have a 20-year degree .... good enough?

Hobbit is essentially correct. Assassination is illegal domestically, militarily, and/or internationally.

Removing Saddam without removing his entire regime would be pointless strategically as his equally-diabolical and ruthless son would just move up a notch.

We already saw the result of fomenting rebellion among the Iraqis in 91. The Kurds, Shia and Sunni's basically existed in No Fly zones established by us to keep Saddam from completely wiping them out fo existence. So that basically is a proven failure strategically.

 

[archangel]

I think you need to read my post again. I didn't disparage his opinion or his right to it. I said that, lacking experience in military strategy, his opinion has no more weight or authority than those who hold the opposite opinion.

would ya care to share with us your experience... I have posted mine several times..and get heat from all parties involved...but alas tis nice to give ones opinion based on real life experience...regardless of the heat ya may take...please share! :cof:

 

[Nightwish]

Getting back to the spirit of the OP, RWA made the comment that it is illogical to support the ousting of Saddam Hussein yet oppose the way in which it happened. He believes that in order to be in favor of the ends, one must also logically be in favor of the means. To RWA, it would appear, the ends always justify the means, if his argument has any consistency whatsoever. So let me put forward some scenarios, and see if RWA (or those who think like him) will be consistent.

1. Saddam Hussein pursued nuclear ambitions, hoping to eventually build some effective nuclear weapons, which he intended to later use to decimate his neighbors. In this effort, his scientists accidentally stumbled upon the holy grail -- cold fusion, theoretically the cleanest and most efficient power source we could have. Was it okay, then, for Saddam to pursue those nuclear ambitions, since it resulted in cold fusion?

2. Josef Mengele, the Nazi "Angel of Death" tortured and eviscerated thousands of Jews. He did so for the expressed purpose of gaining medical knowledge, which he did, some of it very valuable. Since some of the medical knowledge he found was so valuable, must we then logically support his torture and evisceration of thousands of Jews? What if he had discovered the cure of cancer or AIDS or bird flu? Would his experiments be okay?

3. During the Reagan and Bush years, Saddam murdered thousands of his own people, even sponsoring the MEK to gas 5000 Kurds in one day. Among those Kurds who died was a man named Amal Muhammed al-Jazil, who was otherwise destined to become the most brutal and bloody dictator the world has ever seen in the mid 21st century. This guy would have made Saddam and Hitler both look like Sunday School teachers. If you had the insight into what the future would have been without the gas attack, would you then logically say that the gas attack was the right thing to do?

Do the ends always justify the means, RWA et al.?

 

[Gunny]

Getting back to the spirit of the OP, RWA made the comment that it is illogical to support the ousting of Saddam Hussein yet oppose the way in which it happened. He believes that in order to be in favor of the ends, one must also logically be in favor of the means. To RWA, it would appear, the ends always justify the means, if his argument has any consistency whatsoever. So let me put forward some scenarios, and see if RWA (or those who think like him) will be consistent.

1. Saddam Hussein pursued nuclear ambitions, hoping to eventually build some effective nuclear weapons, which he intended to later use to decimate his neighbors. In this effort, his scientists accidentally stumbled upon the holy grail -- cold fusion, theoretically the cleanest and most efficient power source we could have. Was it okay, then, for Saddam to pursue those nuclear ambitions, since it resulted in cold fusion?

2. Josef Mengele, the Nazi "Angel of Death" tortured and eviscerated thousands of Jews. He did so for the expressed purpose of gaining medical knowledge, which he did, some of it very valuable. Since some of the medical knowledge he found was so valuable, must we then logically support his torture and evisceration of thousands of Jews? What if he had discovered the cure of cancer or AIDS or bird flu? Would his experiments be okay?

3. During the Reagan and Bush years, Saddam murdered thousands of his own people, even sponsoring the MEK to gas 5000 Kurds in one day. Among those Kurds who died was a man named Amal Muhammed al-Jazil, who was otherwise destined to become the most brutal and bloody dictator the world has ever seen in the mid 21st century. This guy would have made Saddam and Hitler both look like Sunday School teachers. If you had the insight into what the future would have been without the gas attack, would you then logically say that the gas attack was the right thing to do?

Do the ends always justify the means, RWA et al.?

In the case of removing Saddam Hussein AND HIS REGIME from power beingthe strategy, military invasion was the most viable option as a tactic, unless you consider nuking every major city in Iraq a viable option.

So in this particular instance, the end justifies the means since it was the most tactically sound option available.

 

[Nightwish]

I have a 20-year degree .... good enough?

In what? Military experience, and strategic military planning are two different things. If you're just a gunny sgt, then it's unlikely you have all that much experience in planning complex strategies. But if you do, kudos to you, it would give your opinion a lot more weight in support of an objective claim than the opinion of one who lacks such experience.

Hobbit is essentially correct. Assassination is illegal domestically, militarily, and/or internationally.

Yet that's never stopped them, has it?

Removing Saddam without removing his entire regime would be pointless strategically as his equally-diabolical and ruthless son would just move up a notch.

Actually, leaving the Ba'athist regime in power was one of the early ideas being tossed around, because the Bush administration would prefer a secular and not a religious government installed. The problem of Saddam's sons could have possibly been handled in a similar fashion to the problem of Saddam himself.

We already saw the result of fomenting rebellion among the Iraqis in 91. The Kurds, Shia and Sunni's basically existed in No Fly zones established by us to keep Saddam from completely wiping them out fo existence. So that basically is a proven failure strategically.

Totally different scenario. They tried to foment rebellion against a strong Saddam who had the backing of a strong and loyal army. What we encountered this time around was a weak, demoralized army that was all too eager to get away from a fattened, greedy, relatively isolated Saddam.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Do the ends always justify the means, RWA et al.?

No. But THIS end justified THESE means. Don't be over-general.

 

[Nightwish]

Hobbit does have military training of some sort. The extent of which I forget, but still, more than toi.

Whether it is more than me remains to be seen. I have six years. Not that it gives me any credible insight into military strategy. Some of my opinions, however, are inspired by a family member, an Air Force Lt. Colonel who has had a 24-year career in Air Force Intelligence, and he is critical of the war because he feels not enough options that he feels deserved at least a nominal consideration were tried. He is currently stationed in Italy, however, so I haven't had much opportunity of late to speak with him.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Whether it is more than me remains to be seen. I have six years. Not that it gives me any credible insight into military strategy. Some of my opinions, however, are inspired by a family member, an Air Force Lt. Colonel who has had a 24-year career in Air Force Intelligence, and he is critical of the war because he feels not enough options that he feels deserved at least a nominal consideration were tried. He is currently stationed in Italy, however, so I haven't had much opportunity of late to speak with him.

Is he the mastermind behind the "Sanctions, plus a tweak" debacle?

 

[Nightwish]

No. But THIS end justified THESE means. Don't be over-general.

It was you who made the blanket assertion that one cannot possible support the ends without supporting the means. So your position is inconsistent, as I suspected. The question isn't whether or not I am right in being critical of the war, but whether or not someone can logically support the one without supporting the other. I think we've established that it is every bit as logical to support the end but not the means, as it is to support both (in this case, at least).

 

[Nightwish]

Is he the mastermind behind the "Sanctions, plus a tweak" debacle?

He has mentioned the encouragement of an uprising, since the conditions of the army were changed from the 91 events. But he wasn't as detailed as I was in my analysis of the effects of the sanctions on the morale of the people. His idea actually was to offer the military bribes and quarter if they would turn against him.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It was you who made the blanket assertion that one cannot possible support the ends without supporting the means..

No, not at all. I said one cannot support the ousting of Saddam, yet be against the Iraqi inavsion. You're getting confused between "specific" and "general".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But he wasn't as detailed as I was in my analysis of the effects of the sanctions on the morale of the people..

Yeah. When it comes to idiocy, less is more.