For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by rtwngAvngr, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

    This is really an illogical position. Regardless of how nuanced the ever growing explanations are, if dems had had their way Saddam would still be in power. The Sanctions were not working. Saying they were is a flight of fancy, A nonstop to Stupidville.
     
  2. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Let me pre-empt a minute. Here's the problem with saying you're against the war, but wanted Saddam removed. The three most commonly listed war alternatives are:

    Assassination - Are you out of your f***ing mind?! Assassination would have, at the least, cost Bush the election and may have landed him in jail. Assassination of a world leader, no matter how sick, is highly illegal and is frowned upon by most civilized people. Then there's the other problem, and that is succession. Removal of Saddam would not have freed the Iraqi people. In fact, whoever succeeded him would probably kill a bunch of people as a show of power, then blame it on the U.S., making us less safe. It's just a bad idea all around, which means it's absolutely no surprise to me that it was a Michael Moore suggestion. The main problem though, is that this solution only targets a single man, not the entire regime, which is what needed changing. As a counter-example, if the Arabs assassinated Bush, do you think our whole country would collapse and leave them alone? No, Cheney would assume office and have everyone responsible for the change of leadership shot.

    Encouraging rebellion - What a joke. Only Saddam's flunkies had guns, and just like a small nation like Britain was able to subdue half the world with superior firepower, even a small army armed with AK-47s can easily keep down an unarmed populace.

    "Letting the Sanctions Work" - The purpose of the sanctions was to financially break Saddam, but Saddam would let his people starve before sitting on a non-golden toilet. We've also seen that there are always back channels. Oil for food, anyone? Truth be told, they hadn't worked for over a decade, and they weren't going to work just because we wanted them to.

    Edit: I need to start proofreading.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Nightwish
    Offline

    Nightwish Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    211
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Ratings:
    +6
    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.
     
  4. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    This is a messageboard. Hobbit does not make foreign policy. So in the context of his comments his opinion carry the weight of a long term respected member of the board. Newer members have sometime and convincing to gain such weight.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Unfortunatley in America the govt has to get the support of people who are dumb as a rock to accomplish worthwhile goals. Or are you one of those who thinks we outta do whatever the majority of people think?
     
  6. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    I think what's even more ridiculous is the Liberals argument that people in Iraq were better off with Saddam in power? Im still waiting to hear that one explained logically??
     
  7. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    He is still alive, we could just give him back the country.
     
  8. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,914
    Thanks Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,804
    Same thing can be said about your opinion. But most of us here choose to analyze poeople's posts by the facts. We don't require a degree from an accredited school to form an opinion.



    Then why don't you enlighten us with the many possibilities that could come from an assassination. Be sure to include a senario of a failed assassination attempt.
     
  9. Nightwish
    Offline

    Nightwish Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    211
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Ratings:
    +6
    Then I'm sure if you want to make war a board game or fantasy role-play, with this bulletin board making the rules, then his opinion will be law. In the real world, it don't mean much.
     
  10. Nightwish
    Offline

    Nightwish Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    211
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Ratings:
    +6
    Actually, the only time I've ever seen such an argument made was when Newsmax reported a poll that they claim said that a majority of Dems said they believe that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power. In fact, the Newsmax article was a lie, because when I searched online and found the actual poll they were talking about, it showed exactly the opposite. The majority said they did NOT think Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power.

    Newsmax is just about the least credible source on the planet. I just can't seem to make people understand that.
     

Share This Page