For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

 

[Hobbit]

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.

 

[Nightwish]

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.

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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?

 

[Bonnie]

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.

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??

 

[MtnBiker]

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??

He is still alive, we could just give him back the country.

 

[theHawk]

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.

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.

And your comments about the assassination option are about as feeble an argument against it as I've seen yet.

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.

 

[Nightwish]

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.

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.

 

[Nightwish]

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??

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

I want people to be mostly respectful with each other while discussing opinions on this messageboard.

Each member creates and builds his or hers credibility according to their history of logical posts and how they interact with other.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

My question doesn't really address Newsmax, but rather the many other news sources that have quoted prominant Democrats in saying such.

 

[Nightwish]

Same thing can be said about your opinion.

I said as much in my post. You should have read further.

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 I'm sure you'd be more than happy to enlighten us with the "facts" about why there was no possible alternative to war for removing Saddam from power. I've seen a treasure trove of worthless opinions from both the left and the right, but "facts," as you say, seem to have a phantom existence.

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.

The argument was feeble because it only argued about why it wouldn't be a good idea to do it and have it known that Bush ordered, but makes no attempt to analyze the chances of it actually being successful. In other words, it was a red herring. You do know what that is, I trust?

 

[Nightwish]

I want people to be mostly respectful with each other while discussing opinions on this messageboard.

Each member creates and builds his or hers credibility according to their history of logical posts and how they interact with other.

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.

 

[Nightwish]

My question doesn't really address Newsmax, but rather the many other news sources that have quoted prominant Democrats in saying such.

Please quote one. One problem I've noted with the right is that they seem to be unable to separate the ideas that "the war was a bad idea" and "Saddam should have been left alone." Those aren't equal statements, but for some reason the right wing tends to see them as equal, mainly because it fuels their rhetoric. But please do not make the mistake of thinking that when someone says they were against the war, that it means they think Saddam should have been left in power or that Iraq was better off with Saddam than without him. That's a fallacy. I know you're more reasonable than RWA, so please don't start thinking like him.

 

[MtnBiker]

I think you need to read my post again.

I do not need to read that post again.

 

[Nightwish]

I do not need to read that post again.

Then are you conceding that you either missed some words, ignored some words, or innocently misread my intent?

 

[theHawk]

The argument was feeble because it only argued about why it wouldn't be a good idea to do it and have it known that Bush ordered, but makes no attempt to analyze the chances of it actually being successful.

And your arguement isn't any less feeble? You don't even have one(at least not posted). You seem like a really intelligent guy, you really do! I want to know what you think would of happened. But if you don't want to post it, we'll just bow to your superior intellect :hail:

 

[MtnBiker]

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

In the context of this messageboard Hobbits opinion as a long term respected member carries more weight than new members.

 

[Nightwish]

And your arguement isn't any less feeble? You don't even have one(at least not posted). You seem like a really intelligent guy, you really do! I want to know what you think would of happened. But if you don't want to post it, we'll just bow to your superior intellect :hail:

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.