For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

Maybe so, but certainly a tad bit more than yours.

I am wondering which part of "assasisnating a foreign leader is ILLEGAL" you didnt get, and doesnt make sense to you?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

Liar. You did disparage his opinion. You said it was worthless unless he had a degree in military training.

These are YOUR words:
"Your opinion is duly noted. And the moment you obtain a degree or advanced training in military strategy, it will be worth something..."

or in other words it is worth nothing. Saying someones opinion is worth nothing is disparaging.

Plus you seem to have ignored the FACT that he said if saddam were assasinated, it wouldnt solve the problem because another tyrant would merely take his place. DUH!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

ITs even more silly to assume because someone agreed and supported the war, that they never questioned it and just blindly walk lockstep with ...
not to mention the use of such perjorative words indicates and extremely weak arguement neccessitating propaganda.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

The thread was opened as a discussion of OPINIONS. He didnt have to state "its my opinion". If you deduced that he was stating it as an absolute stone cold fact, then you must live in the Himilayas somewhere. Your FALSE deduction is your problem. Most of us here assume something posted is the persons opinion unless they state otherwise, Get with the program, we are in the 21st century now.

Uh, IM sorry man, but what the hell are you talking about?
What "OBJECTIVE CLAIM" did he make? I think you are fabricating things and hallucinating.
What objective claim did he make?
He said it wouldnt work because, of such and such,,,THATS HIS OPINION, he didnt say, "It is a stone cold fact that no other possible conclusion could have occured because..."

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Taxes are a necessary evil. Not even the most staunch conservative will say otherwise. And only the stupidest people would ever say that lowering taxes without having a plan to make up the money somewhere else is a good thing. It's not a liberal or conservative thing, it's a common sense thing.


Your propensity for wrapping up each post with a juvenile ad hominem insult is doing you no service. I just hope you understand that.

only the stupidest people would ever say that lowering taxes without having a plan to make up the money somewhere else is a good thing????

UH, listen, Im wondering how many STUPID things you can say in one day.
Lowering taxes INCREASES revenues. THERE IS NOTHING TO MAKE UP.
And besides, if the revenues decreased, no, its not stupid to expect govt to cut out wasteful spending to take care of it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Originally Posted by GunnyL
You are ignoring fact. If the goal is to take out Saddam and his regime and all you do is take out Saddam, the tactics you employ are in fact unsound as they do not achieve the desired result.

In your opinion.

Uh, IM losing track of how many stupid things you can say in one day.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!! Its not his opinion. Its logical deduction.

Our desired result is x and y. If we accomplish only x, then we have not achieved the desired result.
DUH!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'd say nightwish has succeeded in proving to everyone he's a complete moron. :chains:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'd say nightwish has succeeded in proving to everyone he's a complete moron. :chains:

Ya know, I gotta disagree. Morons are not capable of acting quite that stupid.

 

[Gunny]

In your opinion.

Wrong. Right in your face fact that you refuse to look at.

No, you've clearly stated your opinion.

Supported by fact and logic and proper application of tactics as taught by the US military.

No, I've asked you to respond with facts, not opinions, when you make objective statements. Do I need to define the word "objective" for you, so you'll understand the conundrum?

Obviously you are yet another dishonest liberal who wants to play word games and refuses to lose even though you have. I presented a strategy based on fact and the reason the tactics used worked based on fact and why yours would not based on fact.

Just claiming that your opinion is supported by fact doesn't establish that it is. You'll need to actually present those facts. Thus far, you've only presented opinions. "I don't think that would work, because I think this is what would happen" in a statement of opinion, not one of fact. Your statements have had that character.

When the facts are commonly accepted by everyone -- well, except you it seems -- then they are established. I have presented facts and you are being an idiot because you refuse to admit you are wrong.

I don't know of any online resources that speak of it directly, I'm mostly remembering it from a televised press conference in 2003 with Rumsfeld, and someone asked if they were going to leave the Ba'athists in power if Saddam Hussein were deposed because they oppose the desecularization of Iraq, and his resonse was something to the effect of "There are still a number of ideas on the table," neither affirming nor denying. I did find this article from August of last year, indicating plans in the military to possibly bring some of the ex-military and Ba'ath party members back into the new government.

As many options as possible are always considered. I did not say otherwise. I actually considered the options you proposed prior to responding them. What I did say was the military plans actually drawn up included the removal of Saddam and his regime.

I also stated the logical reasoning behind the necessity of removing both Saddam and his regime.

Of course I'm stating my opinion. I've never pretended otherwise. I'm speaking of possibilities, not of definites, and have explicitly said so numerous times. I am not making objective statements about what absolutely will or will not work. I'm simply offering food for thought. It is you and your fellow hawks who are foolishly making objective statements that you can't back up with facts. An opinion doesn't need to be backed up with facts and resources. An objective statement does. Why are you having such difficulty understanding that?

I have backed my statements with facts..... facts you refuse to acknowledge because they do not support your "possibilities." Fact: the strategy and tactics I proposed worked. So obviously the Bush administration and the US military agree with me, not you. Pretty-damned simple.

Fact: The objective in strategic planning is to use the most efficient tactics to achieve a desired result. Your "possibilities" while not ruled out as possibilities are not the most efficient means to the desired end. And again, it is not just my opinion, but the opinions of the Bush administration and the US military strategic planners.

If you desire more facts than that, all I can suggest is a course on military strategy and tactics.

 

[Nightwish]

Uh, IM losing track of how many stupid things you can say in one day.

Wow, did I so roundly kick your ass in the Values thread that you have abandoned any attempt at discussion, preferring instead RWA's insult-oriented strategies? Birds of a feather, I guess.

You do realize that in mature debate, such a quick resort to ad hominem is generally viewed as a tacit admission of defeat. Just FYI.

 

[Nightwish]

I have backed my statements with facts.....

No, my friend, you seem to be continuing to confuse fact with opinion. See, rebutting my comments with a fact might be something like citing an actual example of attempts to employ those same tactics in parallel situations that failed, and failed for reasons other than poor planning or execution. The closest you have come to that was vaguely alluding to an attempt to support an uprising in 1991 when the conditions were nowhere near similar. You haven't demonstrated with any examples of failed assassination attempts in similar situations, or informed analyses of why such things failed. Okay, I'll grant you that you did present one single solitary fact -- that assassination is illegal, yet have been strangely silent on my retort that the legality of it has never been a hindrance in the past.

facts you refuse to acknowledge because they do not support your "possibilities."

When you present an actual fact, we'll come back to this.

Fact: the strategy and tactics I proposed worked. So obviously the Bush administration and the US military agree with me, not you. Pretty-damned simple.

Duh! Have you heard anybody say that the strategy they employed did not work? The criticism is that although it worked, it was hasty, and might not have been the best strategy, all things considered. Trying to rebut with "the Bush administration and the US military agree with me," is pretty silly. They are the ones being criticized. Not sure how you missed that!

Fact: The objective in strategic planning is to use the most efficient tactics to achieve a desired result.

The "most efficient" tactic differs according the media being used. The most efficient tactic for an army is not the most efficient tactic for a covert op unit is not the most efficient tactic for the CIA. The point is, the militaristic approach was not the only one available, it's just the one they favored (read the PNAC website, and you'll understand why they didn't even pause to consider another agent of delivery).

Your "possibilities" while not ruled out as possibilities are not the most efficient means to the desired end.

Well, at least you've moved on from "impossible," to "not ruled out as possibilities, but not the most efficient."

And again, it is not just my opinion, but the opinions of the Bush administration and the US military strategic planners.

And again, the opinions of the very people who's opinions are the ones under scrutiny are kind of irrelevant. Bush was right, because in Bush's opinion he was right isn't much of an argument. See how that works?

Obviously you are yet another dishonest liberal

Moderate, try again. I'm just liberal on this particular issue.

I presented a strategy based on fact and the reason the tactics used worked based on fact and why yours would not based on fact.

Correction, you presented a strategy based on fact and the reason the tactics used worked based on hindsight, and the reason mine wouldn't based on opinion.

What I did say was the military plans actually drawn up included the removal of Saddam and his regime.

At what point were you personally made privy to the military plans that were actually drawn up, as well as the drafts before the final plans were settled upon? No offense, but last I knew, Gunny Sgts. aren't generally at the forefront of tactical planning operations in the war room.

 

[Hobbit]

Wow, I missed the better part of 8 pages from this. Anyway, I wasn't aware that making logical arguments as to possible outcomes wasn't good enough to back an conjecture unless I post a resume, so here it is.

My only personal, formal military training came from boot camp at the Naval Academy. I left due to injury at the end and the only direct, lasting benefit is that running on a broken leg for six days made me about the toughest motherf***er I know. However, I gained a bit of benefit by keeping up with my old platoon members until they finally graduated and went to OCS (no e-mail at OCS).

When I started hearing the libs, mainly Michael Moore, saying that assassination would have been a viable strategy, I balked, but thought I'd get professional opinon, just to be sure (after getting bamboozled by higher education and the liberal mass media for so long, I rarely trust first impressions). I e-mailed my old platoon. One of them was taking some class called strategic command or something like that. The guy teaching was a captain (Naval equivalent of a full eagle colonel, for those who don't know), and after that semester, was promoted to rear admiral (lower half, meaning 1 star) and given command of a carrier group. The subject of assassinating Saddam came up in his class once, and he pointed out that everybody in the military learns the job of the person direcly above and below him in rank and succession specifically so that the removal of one man, even the top man, doesn't break the army, but merely shakes it up a bit. He concluded that any man smart enough to control a country for that long would have set up a successor, probably a trusted friend or relative, in case something happened.

I got the same answer from my uncle, a retired artilleryman (Maj.) who had quite a hand in strategic planning, as a man who usually needed to see the battlefield as a whole (so you don't drop shells on your own troops).

As for the other two, I would think anybody who had studied a history book would be qualified vy number two and anybody who had bothered to look at the public arena since Gulf War I would be qualified to see number two. The sanctions didn't work, and showed no signs of being able to work in the near future, and now that we've uncovered Oil for Food, we know why.

As for the rebellion, let's look at all successful rebellions in the past (that I can think of). The only unarmed one was the non-violent Indian rebellion led by the philosopher Ghandi, and I doubt Saddam would just get up and leave the country to the good people of Iraq, as, unlike the British in India, Saddam had no power outside of Iraq.

So there we have it. However, I do find it funny that rather than tell me in what ways I am wrong, the man simply chose to tell me that I wasn't really qualified to say it in the first place.

 

[manu1959]

that assassination is illegal, yet have been strangely silent on my retort that the legality of it has never been a hindrance in the past.

since all you deal in is facts and support all your post with three sources......god forbid you toss out an opinion or comment.....


please post a us assasination of a foreign leader...remember 3 sources...

 

[Nightwish]

Wow, I missed the better part of 8 pages from this. Anyway, I wasn't aware that making logical arguments as to possible outcomes wasn't good enough to back an conjecture unless I post a resume, so here it is.

If your intention is to make an objective claim, or to just dismiss an argument as impossible, then you need to establish that you can speak from some authority. If you are clearly stating nothing more than an opinion, then such authority isn't needed. That wasn't clear in your post.

My only personal, formal military training came from boot camp at the Naval Academy. I left due to injury at the end and the only direct, lasting benefit is that running on a broken leg for six days made me about the toughest motherf***er I know. However, I gained a bit of benefit by keeping up with my old platoon members until they finally graduated and went to OCS (no e-mail at OCS).

For my part, I had six years in the USAF, fueling planes on the runway, and was honorably in 1993. I have maintained fairly regular contact (though not much since this past summer) with my cousin, a 24-year veteran Lt. Colonel USAF Intelligence, now stationed in Italy.

When I started hearing the libs, mainly Michael Moore, saying that assassination would have been a viable strategy, I balked, but thought I'd get professional opinon, just to be sure (after getting bamboozled by higher education and the liberal mass media for so long, I rarely trust first impressions). I e-mailed my old platoon. One of them was taking some class called strategic command or something like that. The guy teaching was a captain (Naval equivalent of a full eagle colonel, for those who don't know), and after that semester, was promoted to rear admiral (lower half, meaning 1 star) and given command of a carrier group. The subject of assassinating Saddam came up in his class once, and he pointed out that everybody in the military learns the job of the person direcly above and below him in rank and succession specifically so that the removal of one man, even the top man, doesn't break the army, but merely shakes it up a bit. He concluded that any man smart enough to control a country for that long would have set up a successor, probably a trusted friend or relative, in case something happened.

Thank you. That's a much better-reasoned response than what Gunny offered. His offering was pretty general and didn't have any explanation for why a tripartite assassination plot against Saddam and both sons would not have likely worked.

As for the other two, I would think anybody who had studied a history book would be qualified vy number two and anybody who had bothered to look at the public arena since Gulf War I would be qualified to see number two. The sanctions didn't work, and showed no signs of being able to work in the near future, and now that we've uncovered Oil for Food, we know why.

I also doubt the sanctions would have worked if they had been simply left in place. I've never advocated that option. The only way they would have worked was to stop the Oil For Food program and cut off Saddam cold turkey, but the human cost would have been way too high.

As for the rebellion, let's look at all successful rebellions in the past (that I can think of). The only unarmed one was the non-violent Indian rebellion led by the philosopher Ghandi, and I doubt Saddam would just get up and leave the country to the good people of Iraq, as, unlike the British in India, Saddam had no power outside of Iraq.

For my part, I wasn't advocating an unarmed rebellion. I was suggesting that a rebellion armed, supplied and supported by us might have worked, building upon the already tense atmosphere from the sanctions, the fact that the army was demoralized and in complete disarray. Such a thing, if done properly, might have more the character of the successive "Rose Revolutions" of Georgia and Ajaria, than the Ghandi revolution.

So there we have it. However, I do find it funny that rather than tell me in what ways I am wrong, the man simply chose to tell me that I wasn't really qualified to say it in the first place.

What did you expect? The entire tone of your first post in this thread set the tone that anyone who believed in the possibility of alternatives to the war in Iraq could only be insane or stupid. Did you honestly then expect that those who do believe that other alternatives were possible would then just walk up and hand you roses? You reap what you sew, partner.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Wow, did I so roundly kick your ass in the Values thread that you have abandoned any attempt at discussion, preferring instead RWA's insult-oriented strategies? Birds of a feather, I guess.

You do realize that in mature debate, such a quick resort to ad hominem is generally viewed as a tacit admission of defeat. Just FYI.

claiming you kicked someones ass is generally viewed as a tactic admission of defeat.

You kicked my ass?????

Making a larger volume of posts does not constitute kicking ones ass.

By the way, how many rep points did you get in that thread???

 

[Hobbit]

What did you expect? The entire tone of your first post in this thread set the tone that anyone who believed in the possibility of alternatives to the war in Iraq could only be insane or stupid. Did you honestly then expect that those who do believe that other alternatives were possible would then just walk up and hand you roses? You reap what you sew, partner.

Actually, you just took it that way. I simply started with the three arguments I had heard before. Never did I say that those were the only three options, nor did I say that nothing else would work. I simply stated the three war alternatives I had heard before along with refutations for them.

By the way, it doesn't take a military resume to present logical reasons for something not working. If I say "Assassination wouldn't even work because somebody would just take his place," I shouldn't have to present a lengthy list of people I know who are experts on the subject to get you to take it seriously. I also stated, in my first post, that the sanctions hadn't and wouldn't work, and that a rebellion would likely not succeed because Saddam controlled all of the weapons. All you had to do is counter by telling me why one of these things would work. None of the rest of us require a resume before we'll consider a logical argument and try to debate it, so try hitting the points instead of the author, and if you think you're more qualified, feel free to list your qualifications instead of assuming the other person is less experienced than you.

In a continuation of the discusssion, there is one factor of even an armed rebellion that hasn't yet been listed...gas. We're still finding formerly Saddam owned caches of mustard gas, VX, and sarin. If the Kurds and the Sunnis had revolted, they would have been wiped out in a painful fashion. We, on the other hand, have plentiful gas masks and the equipment and tactics necessary to overwhelm the place before the gas can even be deployed.

 

[Nightwish]

claiming you kicked someones ass is generally viewed as a tactic admission of defeat.

Advice: if you try to throw back at somebody because they threw a similar one at you, make sure your jab has the same substance. Yours doesn't, because a claim of victory is not a tacit admission of defeat if it is true.

You kicked my ass?????

Let's compare, shall we?
You asserted that the United States is unequivocally a Christian nation. You claimed that you had several proofs, including "voluminous" quotes, as well as book-signed memberships to various denominations which you named (which was odd, since some of them weren't even around at the time). I requested on multiple occasions that you post those proofs that you continually claimed to have. Interestingly, I just visited that forum a few minutes ago, and as of that moment, you've still not done so. You continually whined and cried about why you wouldn't post them, using the old, "Why bother, you won't believe me anyway" canard. But to this moment you've not posted one shred of quote, citation or otherwise offered any substantiation of your claims.

Now, I, on the otherhand, asserted that our nation is founded upon religious principles, but that many of the founding fathers were Deists, not dogmatic Christians, and that they explicitly stated that the United States was not to be construed as a Christian nation. Like you, I was also asked to provide proof and support. In response to that request, I posted a lengthy list of quotes from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Payne and Ethan Allen.

So, let's look at the score in that debate, shall we?

LuvRPgrl: Assertions - 1; supporting sources - 0.
Nighwish: Assertions - 1; supporting sources - many, including a legal document.

Now, if you would like to somehow construe that as not having had your ass kicked, please explain.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nightwish wanted to keep sanctions in place to defeat saddam. How ineffective can one get?

 

[Said1]

LuvRPgrl: Assertions - 1; supporting sources - 0.
Nighwish: Assertions - 1; supporting sources - many, including a legal document.

For that, I award you ONE Golden Elton.

 

[Mariner]

we know now, RightWing, it is clear that sanctions were working just fine. Saddam was all bluff and bluster, and we were taken in by people like Ahmed Chalabi, who wanted him overthrown for their own reasons, and figured they could get our help by saying he was a real threat to us. If you've followed the news, you've seen every single piece of "evidence" that Bush had for Saddam's dangerousness to us shot down. The picture that has emerged is of a grandstanding dictator who posed us no risk at all, and whose major crimes, the post-facto justification Bush picked for the war when all the other justifications turned out false, were actually committed when he was our ally, not our enemy, making us complicit.

Pick up this week's New Yorker magazine and read the interview with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Republican, avowed neoCon, moderate Muslim, and friend of Bush), Khalilzad. Asked if the invasion was truly necessary, he hedges, making it clear that even at the time the neoCons knew they were pushing an acceptable rationale, not a real reason for war.

Mariner.