PDA

View Full Version : POLL : Saddam's sons


Cyrus
07-27-2003, 02:28 PM
You are the President of the United States. You are informed that the hide-out of Saddam's two sons has been positively identified. A raid is being prepared. You now have a choice between ordering that every possible effort be made to (A) capture them ALIVE, or (B) bring them back DEAD. Ignoring all moral considerations, please CHOOSE what's best for America.

After voting, you could also post some justificaion for your preference.

John Cole
07-27-2003, 03:18 PM
Dead is the most pragmatic solution. No messy trials to contend with.

John Ho
07-27-2003, 04:07 PM
Alive is better since they can be interrogated. If they're dead we have lost a huge resource in locating the Iraqi WMD.

Too bad for the Bush administration they had no choice but to kill them considering we had hundreds of soldiers with modern weaponry and all the time in the world vs. 4 people with AK 47s who have limited food and water. God forbid we launch tear gas or concussion grenades.

Ray Zee
07-27-2003, 04:16 PM
dead is best as we do lose the chance to interrogate, but dont have to have them alive to give orders to followers. and by being dead the iraq people have less to fear and can maybe capitulate to us being there.
since they wouldnt be executed its likely they would always be a thorn in the worlds side. when taking over a country its always best strategy to kill all leaders and followers. wrong from a moral point but right from a strategic sense.

MMMMMM
07-27-2003, 05:28 PM
Dead since:

1) it is highly unlikely that we would get any useful information out of them

2) their continued existence would serve to encourage the remaing Baathist holdouts.

3) why risk losing more of our soldiers unnecessarily

As for Saddam however, a summary military hanging in the place his giant statue used to stand might be symbolic enough to crumble the will of many remaing diehard Baathists. Of course Iraqis should have the honors. First however a long line of Iraqis should be permitted to offer testimony: those whose family members were executed for political reasons or those who bear the marks of torture should be permitted to speak. The line would be very long but Saddam and the world would listen to the entire proceeding before judgment would be carried out.

brad
07-27-2003, 07:17 PM
given that saddam and bush sr. were business partners best to err on side of safety and dont let any dirty laundry come out.

p.s. of course your assuming they were saddams sons. (who were btw reported killed months or weeks ago)

John Ho
07-27-2003, 08:44 PM
Yeah but Ray how can they give orders when in a U.S. military installation half naked, cold, without sleep while being interrogated? They deserve it and we might be able to pry useful info out of them. And I think the new Iraqi govt. (when it's formed) would have enjoyed executing the boys themselves.

Clarkmeister
07-27-2003, 09:00 PM
"Alive is better since they can be interrogated. If they're dead we have lost a huge resource in locating the Iraqi WMD. "

That's like saying don't kill someone who might know where Atlantis lies.

John Ho
07-27-2003, 09:06 PM
Well maybe that's why they weren't taken alive.

It's hard for me to believe Saddam allowed his empire to be conquered if he actually did not have WMD. Pride perhaps? Something in the back of my mind still believes he must have still had them but all the evidence points to the contrary.

brad
07-27-2003, 09:25 PM
'but all the evidence points to the contrary'

perhaps all the pre '91 evidence.

i mean iraq did have nuclear power plants (until israelis bombed them).

but to say evidence iraq had wmd recently why dont you enumerate it.

however, i must say that (even though US supplied iraq with chemical and bio agents) there is a chance of secret bio war lab as bio agents dont have to be produced in bulk. however, the genie is out of the bag on bio weapons soon every country will have pretty bad stuff (israel, US , and britian admit to having race specific weapons)

John Ho
07-27-2003, 09:49 PM
Well he is known to have had WMD before and did not provide proof that he destroyed them. That is the gist of the argument for him having the WMDs. It would be very illogical for him to allow the U.S. to invade if he could have prevented it by just showing proof. Of course he could just be crazy.

brad
07-27-2003, 10:15 PM
'It would be very illogical for him to allow the U.S. to invade if he could have prevented it by just showing proof. '

implicit in your argument is that reason US gave for invasion was the real reason.

p.s. saddam did release to UN and media a bunch of stuff (near the end) but u never heard about it; most of it showed how almost all his stuff came direct from US

MMMMMM
07-27-2003, 10:44 PM
actually brad I saw a breakdown of Saddam's military equipment by supplier: a chart. I don't recall the specifics, but the US was WAY down on the list--a puny fraction compared to Russia and some other countries.

brad
07-27-2003, 11:16 PM
'actually brad I saw a breakdown of Saddam's military equipment '

well of course iraq had soviet bloc arms.

im talking about vx, nerve gas, bio agents, etc.

those came from US (and to a lesser extent from russia).

this is highly documented even a US senator was talking about it.

andyfox
07-27-2003, 11:44 PM
Why is it highly unlikely we would get any useful information out of them? And wouldn't a fight to the death be more likely to produce American casualties than trying to take them alive?

Cyrus
07-28-2003, 03:04 AM
THE BENEFITS OF BRINGING THEM BACK ALIVE

First off, the 2 would be evac'd out of Iraq to a safe and US-controlled place abroad, where they would have been kept in relatively decent conditions of imprisonment, pending trial. Capture & transport to be widely reported all over the media.

This would result in the remaining loyalists losing touch with the 2 and thus the resistance in Iraq would weaken to the extent that the 2 had a part in sustaining it.

Then, the media would be witness to (and would be obliged to acknowledge) the US giving humane treatment to its worst enemy. This would facilitate American foreign policy to that extent. It would also win over a number of minds in Iraq about the U.S. having come as a liberator & re-builder rather than as a conqueror, and would thus move forward the time-schedule of disengagement to that extent.

After putting the 2 in jail, they would be interrogated, no-holds barred. If they cannot be of any help towards locating WMDs, then the word would come out that the 2 are refusing to disclose such information. The spin would be out that they were probably not in the loop, since we all knew they were reckless playboys anyway. And if they do come out with WMD info, then, bingo.

Their interrogation would at worst provide the Americans with useful info about Iraqi resistance and about the hide-outs of some of the remaining wanted guys. Perhaps even of the Ace of Spades.

The trial itself would be decided according to the world political climate of the moment. It could be a UN-recognized Court, if re-legitimizing the invasion would be to the interest of Washington at that time. Or it could be a US/UK-led Court if controlling the trial's circumstances and outcome would be deemed essential.

---A note about the NEGATIVE effects a trial would have. Some folks focus on the notion that the 2's testimony or "martyr status" would actually hurt the American cause. Not true. Even if the 2 were privy to damaging information (eg George Bush getting bribed by the Iraqis, at worst), their statements to that end could easily be made out to be more of Baghdad Bob's wild claims. And about that "heroic status" : The better they are treated by Americans (eg photo of Uday getting stuffed turkey on Thanksgiving) the lower they descent in the "heroes' ladder". ------

The psychological effect on the enemy of holding his leaders hostage. This is a little-known, inadequately explored and rarely used tactic by Western beligerents. The Middle Easterners and the Asians understand this better than us. The Turks have been into a vicious and no-holds-barred struggle with the Kurdish separatists for decades. What do they do when they capture the Kurds' murderous leader, Otzalan, whom the Turks hate passionately? They don't execute him, they don't mistreat him, they don't torture him. They keep him in prison, isolated, and after many months of interrogation and deals they stage a trial -- where he denounces armed struggle and accepts Turkish sovereignty! A year after that the Kurdish insurrection is practically over. (I'm not speculating about the same course of events in Iraq. I'm trying to make you think about the concept of hostage-taking. It's essentially about dealing a paralyzing blow to your enemy, to a certain extent. It can be equally devastating, as psy-ops go, to having your enemy killed.)

Then there is the incremental potential for damaging information about America's "allies"! The Saudis, the French, even the Israelis. The 2 could come up with some tasty nuggets of useful, long-term-use info.

Denying the Iraqi resistance of its martyrs is a solidly good cause for keeping the 2 alive, all things considered. I would speculate that the effort to make them martyrs is already under way and it shouldn't be too difficult too. (2 people fighting hand-to-hand "against the might of the US Army"?" With a 14-year old boy fighting at their side too? This is the stuff heroes are made of, in History, whether they were GIs in Bastogne or Nazi soldiers in Berlin.)

So, I respectfully recommend ALIVE, Mr President.

--Cyrus

(..ooops, too late.)

brad
07-28-2003, 04:37 AM
u guys all missed the point.

killing saddam and his sons (numerous times, btw)

is not 4 iraqis

its for winning hearts and minds of americans.

thus those in power cant be seen as weak.

MMMMMM
07-28-2003, 10:07 AM
Why would we get any useful information out of them??? I can't see them helping us, period.

To kill them in that building we could have done what we did or bombed it extensively. To take them alive requires a face-to-face approach while they are still alive and presumably armed. They (while alive) opened fire every time soldiers tried to enter, even after having been extensively fired upon. How could you imagine that trying to take them alive could be any safer? Feel free to submit any scenario for taking them alive that is safer than taking them dead.

John Cole
07-28-2003, 10:50 AM
As one Turkish prisoner wrote as way of advice:

Read and write without rest
and I also advise weaving
amd making mirrors.

Cyrus
07-28-2003, 02:25 PM
"Why would we get any useful information out of them??? I can't see them helping us, period."

One can chemically induce the prisoner to relax to a level that information can be more, shall we say, forthcoming. It's not just banging your fist on the table or banging their heads against the wall, you know.

"How could you imagine that trying to take them alive could be any safer?"

There are, at least in theory, numerous ways of capturing them alive, if one wants to and one is prepared for it : making a deal with them to surrender (honoring it is another matter); following them out of the compound; drugging everyone in the compound; etc.

But I don't think the experts had examined, even in theory, such possibilities. Actually, I don't think the American administration has a specific preference about capturing the Ace of Spades alive or dead.

Not having set objectives is a reliable predictor of snafus.

BruceZ
07-28-2003, 04:41 PM
This poll contains a classic error. The options do not cover the full range of realistic possibilities. Nobody in their right mind would vote to "do everything possible to bring them back alive".

BruceZ
07-28-2003, 04:44 PM
This poll contains a classic error which renders its results meaningless. It doesn't span the full realistic range of possibilities. No one in their right mind would vote that every possible effort be made to capture them alive.

Wake up CALL
07-28-2003, 09:31 PM
"But I don't think the experts had examined, even in theory, such possibilities. Actually, I don't think the American administration has a specific preference about capturing the Ace of Spades alive or dead. "

It appears to me a dead ace of spades is a good ace of spades.


"Not having set objectives is a reliable predictor of snafus."

Perhaps their objectives were quite firmly set but you simply are too blind to see due to your obviohs bias in favor of keeping Saddam's henchmen sons alive. A little objectivity does wonders when examining the intent of others.

Cyrus
07-29-2003, 12:51 AM
"It appears to me a dead Ace of Spades is a good Ace of Spades."

Well now. Somehow this strikes me as even more wrong (and weird) when posted on a poker forum.


"Perhaps their objectives were quite firmly set but you simply are too blind to see due to your obvious bias in favor of keeping Saddam's henchmen sons alive."

(sigh) I am patiently trying to get across my strictly strategical, non-moralistic point of view across, in order to debate it and have some rational discussion. I never posted anything in praise of Saddam's henchmen nor did I moralize abt American conduct in this thread: This thread is about what would be best for American interests and objectives in Iraq. I specifically stated that moral considerations should be set aside when deciding what your answer is given.

The fact that I don't succeed in getting this point across to an otherwise very intelligent poster such as BruceZ is due to personal obsessions but to most others that just flame without ratio it looks like they have precisely that blind side they accuse me of.

Cyrus
07-29-2003, 12:54 AM
"This poll contains a classic error which renders its results meaningless. It doesn't span the full realistic range of possibilities."

All that is asked of you, the President of the U.S., is to choose between giving orders in preference of one outcome over the other: dead vs alive. It doesn't mean that the outcome will be as desired or as clear-cut as set in the Poll. Life is never clear-cut, I'll have you know. We just get to play the percentages.

All we are after here is getting to the formulation of (what would have been) the best outcome for American interests & objectives in Iraq, through choosing an option between capturing 'em dead or alive.

" No one in their right mind would vote that every possible effort be made to capture them alive."

Thanks for being so polite, yet again. I'll pass that over to the crazies here who have cast their vote in favor of Alive.

Wake up CALL
07-29-2003, 06:04 PM
cyrus I said you were obviously biased not immoral, get a grip on reality.

Cyrus
07-30-2003, 01:19 AM
"cyrus I said you were obviously biased not immoral, get a grip on reality."

Heck, here's my position again:

1. I never implied you characterized my views as immoral.
2. I took exceptional pains to keep out morality from the considerations about what to do with Saddam's sons. I said I was after the cold, purely strategic approach that would be best for "American objectives and interests". In other words : forget for a moment morality, OK?
3. The detailed reasoning I gave in my post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=302533&page=9&view=ex panded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1) for arresting the two men alive had nothing to do with morality. Killing them was examined equally as a n option to keeping them alive. The justification was based strictly on facts and on what I judged to be the best course, strategically.
4. I may have been wrong in my analysis and estimations but I haven't yet seen anyone calling me on that. When you suggest that I get "a grip on reality", I would appreciate it if you could point out the factual and/or analytical errors that make you say that.
5. In my analysis, the only bias I have shown is that I examined the best course of action as if I was the President. In other words, the analysis was based on serving "the objestives and interests of the U.S.". If you could find an opposite "bias" in that analysis, that would mean that my suggestions run counter to American interests. But I'm still waiting to see even that kind of rebuttal.

Take care.

Mason Malmuth
07-30-2003, 01:34 AM
Hi Everyone:

Years ago when I worked for the United States Census Bureau we were very concious of not wording the questions on our surveys in a manner that would condition respondents towards certain answers. Your question is a good example of this.

Specifically, when you write ordering that every possible effort be made you are conviently leaving out the possible and likely cost of each option. The way you have the question worded, the respondent is clearly conditioned to answering (A) capture them ALIVE. Also notice that your capitalization of the word "alive" also helps to lead respondents to this answer.

But suppose your options were (A) capture them alive but kill and wound a bunch of our soildiers, or (B) kill the dirty rats as fast as possible producing little harm to any American soildiers. Now what do you suppose the results of your poll would be?

Somehow, Cyrus, I think you're smart enough and knowledgeable enough to known this. I'm very disappointed.

On these forums, we do encourage vigorous debate where all views can be heard. But I think that most of us who participate here expect an HONEST debate without suttle manipulation.

Best wishes,
Mason

Cyrus
07-30-2003, 02:25 AM
Thanks for the response, Mason.

I guess by responding to my own Poll I showed where my preference (or my bias, if you will) lies. But I honestly tried to phrase it as "objectively" as possible.

To wit:

You protest that I had the word "ALIVE" in caps, because this "helps to lead respondents to this answer". However I had the word "DEAD" in caps too ! So, where's the "leading" in this?

You could protest that I have placed the ALIVE option first. And we know that options that are listed way down the ladder get a lower preference from the control samples. But (a) the effect is practially nil in a 2-options poll. And (b) I merely followed convention and placed the two words in alphabetical order. (Perhaps I should have made clear that they are placed in alphabetical order. I prefered less clutter in the post.)

As to the way I phrased the question itself. Yes, I presented the two options as equally valid. I submit that your way shows bias. You recomended this:

"Suppose your options were (A) capture them alive but kill and wound a bunch of our soildiers, or (B) kill the dirty rats as fast as possible producing little harm to any American soildiers."

Note that in in your phrasing it is presumed that there will loss of American life if we try to capture them but not if we try to kill them. However, my two options were weighed without considerations about execution. (I posted elsewhere that capturing the 2 alive would and could be equally costly in lives as the capturing of all the other "cards in the deck" now in prison. I even offered three or four technical suggestions, to that objective.)

Can I be even more bold here, Mason? This POLL was explicitly conducted with a divorce for moral considerations. I specified that "you're the President etc etc". So to put it bluntly, I don't care whether it's moral to kill those 2 without a trial, even if they surrender, if they have children with 'em, etc. All that's irrelevant.

As is an acceptable level of American lives lost.

(And to those jumping out of their seats, every tactical phase in the war should be/is a examined under a similar light. Gains vs losses. "No loss whatsoever of American lives" is not a sensible axiom.)

In the POLL I demanded your opinion abt "what's best for American interests/objectives". If you feel that an option carries an unacceptable cost, whether technical or otherwise, you are to choose the other option.

Final note : We should all realize that getting them DEAD might have potentially involved more dead Americans than capturing them ALIVE! That's another reason why I didn't fuzz the POLL's focus by bringing in that aspect. (A sample scenario: Saddam's 2 sons are inside an incredibly complex and fortified bunker a thousand feet underground. It would be less costly in American lives to negotiate their surrender than to storm the bunker. Nonetheless, if the outcome prefered for American interests is having them DEAD, we go ahead and storm -- and hope for as few casualties as possible. This cannot be contested.)

Take care.

--Cyrus

BruceZ
07-30-2003, 02:48 AM
Mason,

See my "irrelevant" /images/graemlins/wink.gif response above which makes this exact point. Subtle manipulation and invalid logic is rampant throughout all of Cyrus' debates, and unfortunately it is only transparent to a few of us. When called on it, he will deem the criticism as as being irrelevant, copping out, etc. In short, he will defend his flawed logic with more flawed logic, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum. This is why I no longer respond to anything he has to say. You have pointed out some of these flaws before.

You suppose that this was done purposely by a nefarious intellect. I don't give him that much credit. I believe that his desire to support positions of extreme bias have blinded even himself to the serious shortcomings and dishonesty inherent to virtually all of his discourse.

-Bruce

Mason Malmuth
07-30-2003, 02:54 AM
Hi Cyrus:

First, I'll concede that getting questions like this so that their response bias and response variance (a topic I did not address) is kept to an acceptable level can be very difficult.

Second, my wording was not a recommended wording, but an example wording of how conditioning can easily be introduced into questions.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't bother to read it. I'm not interested in getting into a long technical arguments over "self weighting" points that I suspect no one cares about. My purpose was to show that polls like yours can produce results that may be deceptive in nature.

MM

Mason Malmuth
07-30-2003, 02:58 AM
Hi Bruce:

I agree completely. The main reason I responded is that we have so many new members of these forums, and they may not be aware of the point that you make in this case.

Another way of saying what you point out is that this poster uses arguments with the end justifies the means approach.

best wishes,
mason

Cyrus
07-30-2003, 07:06 AM
"[Cyrus] uses arguments with the end justifies the means approach."

Mason,

My position has always been that the ends do NOT justify the means. Could you please point out when or in what context do you remember me using a different approach to that ?

If you are referring to the POLL itself, I tried to use the approach that I understand the U.S. President, who is the supreme American policy-maker, also uses in formulating policy, ie Gains vs Losses (and in the Losses one includes the potential of human lives lost). This was done in order to show that even from a purely strategic point of view (i.e. beyond morality) the capture of those 2 alive would be preferable.

Take care.

--Cyrus

John Cole
07-30-2003, 07:21 AM
Cyrus,

For the record--as if anyone is keeping a tally--I read your questions exactly the way you intended them, without adding conditions to those you had specified. I think, too, that I answered DEAD, which certainly would not be my position, shows, in part, that you stated the questions well.

John

Wake up CALL
07-30-2003, 11:36 AM
"Final note : We should all realize that getting them DEAD might have potentially involved more dead Americans than capturing them ALIVE!"

Under what REASONABLE circumstances could this ever be possible Cyrus? Talk about refusing to give up when you have been corrected time after time. Ever heard of bombs and missiles? They kill from a distance with no loss of American life. DOH!!

brad
07-30-2003, 02:04 PM
'get a grip on reality'

1. well the US already reported saddam and his sons as dead but so much lying going on that hard to say.

2. also u presuppose that this time truth told and they are dead.

not saying #2 isnt true, just that #1 and #2 cant *both* be true, and that administration just lies about everything.

Cyrus
07-31-2003, 08:20 AM
"Under what REASONABLE circumstances could [getting them DEAD might involve more dead Americans than capturing them ALIVE] ever be possible ? Ever heard of bombs and missiles? They kill from a distance with no loss of American life. "

I gave such an example in another post. Here 'tis again: Saddam's sons are holed inside a fortified, fully equipped, underground bunker. And, remember, we want them DEAD.

You cannot bomb them. You cannot use missiles. And you cannot starve them or wait them out because you want them DEAD. But you can storm the place! However, I submit that this course of action would result in at least 1 more dead American GI than a negotiated surrender to get them ALIVE. (I would say that a negotiated surrender would probably involve zero dead GIs.)

Is this reasonable enough ?

"Talk about refusing to give up when you have been corrected time after time."

Bruce's style cannot be imitated. Don't even try.

Cyrus
07-31-2003, 08:45 AM
Mason,

You wrote that you "agree completely" that I use QUOTE manipulation and invalid logic UNQUOTE. Also, that I am QUOTE blinded to the serious shortcomings and dishonesty inherent UNQUOTE to everythign I write.

I suppose I must thank you for taking the time to respond to such an unworthy individual. But, with all due respect, I will not.

Take care.

--Cyrus

Wake up CALL
07-31-2003, 02:45 PM
"Is this reasonable enough ? "

No it is not, they were not found in some deep fortified bunker 2 miles underground. They were found in a villa in the middle of the frigging desert!!!

Try an objective look in the mirror. Most people who refuse to ever admit an error have a serious psychological problem, please seek help, I wish you luck.

brad
07-31-2003, 03:24 PM
if i have the so called facts right, american soldiers were indeed killed or wounded.

why wasnt artillery or napalm or whatever used rather than a (squad level) infantry assault? thus assuring no american casualties?

Wake up CALL
07-31-2003, 05:12 PM
"if i have the so called facts right..."

You do not, no injuries or fatalaties during the raid. Disappointed Mr. brad?

brad
07-31-2003, 06:06 PM
well whats the problem then? they decided to kill them and did it in an effective manner.

i thought US took casualties and argued would have been more if tken alive

Mason Malmuth
07-31-2003, 08:31 PM
Hi Cyrus:

You're more than welcome.

Just one thing though. Where did I wrtie any of the things that you attributed to me?

Best wishes,
mason

Cyrus
08-01-2003, 01:30 AM
Mason,

It was not necessary to write those things yourself. You "agreed completely" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=304193&page=10&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1) with what BruceZ wrote (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=304185&page=10&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=14&fpart=).

Take care.

--Cyrus

Cyrus
08-01-2003, 01:51 AM
"Try an objective look in the mirror. Most people who refuse to ever admit an error have a serious psychological problem, please seek help."

Thanks but it may not be needed. I hereby freely admit that I can be as often wrong as I'm right. It's a learning process all the way, my man ---- and then we die.

"No, it is not [reasonable]. They were not found in some deep fortified bunker 2 miles underground. They were found in a villa in the middle of the frigging desert!"

I know that. But I suggested an imaginary but very much reasonable scenario (you asked for "reasonable circumstances", remember?) whereby we could have more Americans killed in trying to get them out DEAD than if we would try to get those 2 out ALIVE.

In reality they were found where they were found, and they came out feet first, ie DEAD. I know that! /images/graemlins/smile.gif And I read all the commentary about how "glad" everybody was and how "good" that outcome was for America. Well, I happen to differ abt the outcome's benefit to American interests and objectives, and that makes me question more the strange glee exhibited by the superpatriots. (I mean, aren't superpatriots supposed to think of "America first"??)

So, I posted that little POLL (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=302142&page=0&view=ex panded&sb=6&o=14) whereby "you" are the President --- an imaginary circumstance! The point was to identify the proper strategy. Of course, if you believe that under any circumstances, capturing them ALIVE would mean more losses of American lives and that the net strategic gain from getting them ALIVE is not enough to compensate for those Americans' lives -- you are correct to respond as you do.

Note that I posted some arguments to the contrary, in a post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=302533&page=0&view=ex panded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1) above, and although they may be wrong completely, no one has addressed them yet.

Take care.

--Cyrus

brad
08-01-2003, 07:05 AM
what does he know anyway cyrus /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wake up CALL
08-01-2003, 11:02 AM
"Note that I posted some arguments to the contrary, in a post above, and although they may be wrong completely, no one has addressed them yet."

Allow me to address them en masse, there would be no benefit to have captured them alive, only possible detrimental circumstances could develop in the future. There, I am pleased we settled this debate so easily.

Cyrus
08-01-2003, 07:00 PM
My argument was that it would serve American interests & objectives better if the 2 had been captured ALIVE. The argument was based , birefly, on the following :

1. Armed resistance in Iraq would weaken to the extent that the 2 were guiding it.
2. The 2 could provide useful info about Iraqi resistance.
3. The US would appear to treat humanely its worst enemy. This would win over a number of hearts $ minds in Iraq making American work there easier.
4. The 2 could possibly assist in locating the WMDs.
5. A trial for the 2 could provide the conduit for re-legitimizing the invasion in the world forums.
6. There would be a significant paralyzing effect overall from holding the enemy hostage.
7. The capture of the 2 would deny Iraqi resistance its martyrs.

To all these points, which I elaborated at length in the original post, your 'response' is that "there would be no benefit to have captured them alive, only possible detrimental circumstances could develop in the future."

This is a nonsensical 'response' since it rests on an arbitrary and sweeping conclusion, while it doesn't address any of the points I submitted. It's fair to say then that you are only interested in scoring 'points' by calling me names and by posting juvenilia.

Which actually makes my work easier in showing how totally groundless your 'arguments' are.

Thanks.

Wake up CALL
08-02-2003, 12:07 AM
A valid conclusion may be arbitrary and sweeping without being any more "nonsensical" than the original hypothesis as I demonstrated.

You are welcome.