Majestyk

And you know this, how?

You’re right. It would be ridiculous to demand that the President, have prior military experience. As Commander and Chief the President has the resources of an established military council to augment any military experience that he may lack. Just, as he has a slew of other, similar, resources on which to draw.

Personally, I don't have a cabinet of informed specialists whose sole job it is to keep me appraised of their particular area of responsibility or to ensure that my decisions are implemented properly. Which is why, I try not to make factual statements on subjects of which I do not have understanding of, experience in, or at the very least, reliable information on.

Arken

I'm sorry. This is moronic. Yes I'm merely speculating, but that doesn't mean my speculations have no merit... And that's pretty obvious to me since rather than answer them, you simply choose to insult me over it. You have not explained why it would somehow be impossible for these 200 troops to have used a non-lethal method such as tear gas to caputre the four people in this house. I've seen speculation that they might have had gas masks. Sure, they might have... but isn't that just speculation too? There are other tactics that we have used before such as blaring deafeningly-loud music, stinkbombs, cutting off food and water, etc. Why were none of these tactics reported? Do you have the military experience to explain all of that to me?

donaldkilroy

Duh, that's my point. He was alluding to the fact that he doesn't speculate and that he knows for a fact that there are "all sorts of non-lethal methods" in which they could have been taken alive. I merely called him out on it.

That is a fallacious statement. They were given the chance to surrender and the military did make an effort to take them alive; but when it became clear they were not going to be taken alive the order was given to take them dead or alive.

And we'll never know, so that makes this entire argument sort of moot now doesn't it.

What's so ridiculous about it? Have you ever been under someone's charge who knew little to nothing about the job? I have, and let me tell you it makes you really uncomfortable. Especially when it could either place you in harms way or cost you your job due to their incompetence (i.e., Peter Principle).

Strawman argument. I wasn't talking about taking something upon yourself and doing it (as in learning on your own how to fix something). What I was talking about was arbitrarily questioning another/others as if you actually knew (i.e., by personal experience, etc.) what you were talking about.

Arken

I do know for a fact that there are all sorts of non-lethal methods in which they could have been taken alive. I've listed them. I don't know what factors contributed to their not being used.

eldar1011

A recent article in Newsweek states that this was not the case, instead the only fortification were matresses propped up against windows and door frames.

donaldkilroy

All sorts that would have worked in that specific situation under those specific circumstances...really? Well, where is this infamous list you claim to have posted as I'd sure like to see it and the evidence to support these 'sorts of methods' that would have actually worked in that specific situation under those specific circumstances.

eldar1011

Frankly, I'm surprised this thread is still ongoing.

As near as I can tell, one side states that there was a possibility that the Hussein boys could have been taken alive and there was a possiblility that they would've cracked under interrogation. The other side adamantly rules out either possibility.

One side is simply posing the question that perhaps another outcome would have been more desirable. The other side sees that kind of questioning as an attack and feels the need to justify the outcome by stating that there was no other way. This speaks to an arrogance that does not entertain any questions...at all.

Personally, I think it's exactly that kind of arrogance that led to the problems we are seeing in Iraq now.

Arken

1) I don't know what the specific circumstances are, so I make no claim that they would have (your words) worked under them. I only said what could have (my words) worked depending on what the circumstances were. I don't know what the circumstances were exactly though so I do not know what would have worked, only what could have worked.

2) Infamous means 'very evil.' Please show me the list I posted which fits that description.

donaldkilroy

Since you just admitted that you do not know what the specific circumstances were, you inadvertently admitted to the fact that you do not know what methods would have worked. You can second guess this situation to the end of time with your "What if..." argument but it doesn't change what happened nor the how, who, what, when, where, and why it actually happened.

Argumentum ad nauseum. Not to mention dancing in circles.

If you do not know what the circumstances were then you have no basis in fact from which to even base an opinion on what could have/ought to have/should have worked in a circumstance(s) that you are admittingly ignorant of.

I suggest you get a new dictionary.

In context, 'infamous' was meant to mean 'notorious.' In other words, I was being sarcastic regarding your claim that you posted this list of 'methods' that could have/ought to have/should have worked in a circumstance that is admittingly unbeknownst to you.

Arken

Look... Read very closely since you seem to be having trouble. [i]I NEVER SAID WHAT METHODS **WOULD HAVE WORKED** I said what methods COULD HAVE WORKED depending on the circumstances which I admit I do not know but have asked time and again for them to be given so I will know why some methods which COULD HAVE WORKED might NOT HAVE WORKED.

Is that clear enough for you or should I use smaller words?

Also:

Very obviously, the word 'notorious' in this sense means 'exceedingly bad' reputation-wise. If you think I have an exceedingly bad reputation, please show me evidence of it.