Asymmetrical Information

Actually, I think that he still has a sixteen-year-old son. It will be interesting to see what becomes of him, if he is captured alive.

I think you are making a huge, unwarrented assumption. The resistance is only hurt if the resistance is something that Saddam is in charge of and/or working toward his reinstatement.

If the resistance is anti-American rather than pro-baathist, then the death of his sons is a non-event or even a bonus because of how badly it was handled. If the US was serious about finding WMD, they would have captured his sons and questioned them rather than killing them. If the US was serious about 'liberating' Iraq then they would have captured his sons and tried them for crimes against the people of Iraq rather than killing them.

The fact that the were killed unnecessarily reflects badly on the motives and Lawfullness of the Bush administration, which in turn feeds anti-American sentiment in Iraq.

I think you are making a huge, unwarrented assumption. The resistance is only hurt if the resistance is something that Saddam is in charge of and/or working toward his reinstatement.

Someone has at least been trying to take our correspondence courses seriously. 92% for the opening declarative and thesis statement. A shame it so quickly degenerated into -

If the resistance is anti-American rather than pro-baathist, then the death of his sons is a non-event or even a bonus because of how badly it was handled.

Might big and unproven "if;" suggest you get less of your core information from the BBC. Minus six points for poor research.

If the US was serious about finding WMD, they would have captured his sons and questioned them rather than killing them.

Because a serial rapist famous for feeding people into a plastic shredder - head first or feet first depending on his mood - would be likely to cooperate? Minus ten points for poor logical reasoning skills.

If the US was serious about 'liberating' Iraq then they would have captured his sons and tried them for crimes against the people of Iraq rather than killing them.

While they were shooting back, of course, after US troops had so nicely walked up and rang the doorbell. Minus twenty points for overt stupidity.

The fact that the were killed unnecessarily reflects badly on the motives and Lawfullness of the Bush administration,

Actually, parading their mangled pictures around in the media rather than slipping the photos to Al Jazeera (which would have displayed them even more prominently without US connections) would have been the better option, according to Afghanis in Kabul who have taken an interest in openly watching foreign media. For some strange reason.

Minus six points for mediocre logical reasoning skills.

which in turn feeds anti-American sentiment in Iraq.

Which you haven't demonstrated to exist in any significant form, even though it was your core thesis for this assignment. Minus ten points for a wholly inadequate conclusion.

Final score: 92 - 6 - 10 - 20 - 6 - 10 = 40%

Please email, call, or visit Dr. Rita Rational regarding your make-up options, as you are currently failing the course.

The Logical Reasoning Fairy confesses to poor proofreading skills in the "Actually, parading...strange reason" paragraph.

"which in turn feeds anti-American sentiment in Iraq.

Which you haven't demonstrated to exist in any significant form, even though it was your core thesis for this assignment. Minus ten points for a wholly inadequate conclusion."

- Posted by Logical Reasoning Fairy at July 29, 2003 06:36 PM

Personally, I'd call a constant stream of dead and wounded US soldiers a significant form of anti-American sentiment.

I hope the LRF will approve the following, given that I'm disagreeing with Megan's normally very astute reasoning...

Would Saddam necessarily have acknowledged the death of his sons?

He need not have claimed his sons as martyrs to make reference to the raid. The existence of body doubles for the boys seems to be either assumed or common knowledge in Iraq, so claiming that the boys are actually safe in a 'secure, undisclosed location' could have accomplished the same thing.

As Megan pointed out, this signals the end of the dynasty and with it probably the end of anyone who might take revenge on anyone leaking information on Saddam's whereabouts. Not a particularly smart move for a man on the run.

If we assume Saddam is dead or at least incapacitated, how does the disclosure look?

This announcement neutralizes Uday and Qusay (if they are in hiding rather than dead) and anyone claiming to be giving orders in their name. Very effective strategy for undercutting your rivals, or sowing confusion and mistrust among the anti-coalition terrorists. I don't see any clear benefit for the real Saddam, if alive, to do this because these pretenders are furthering his destabilization strategy in the short run, and he could eventually co-opt them in the long run if he returns to power.

Of course there are holes in these assumptions. Saddam wasn't necessarily tight with his sons, so he may have decided to cut them out of the picture. Saddam, or whoever is speaking in his name, may have a poor awareness of the situation and be convinced the raid did claim the boys when in fact they are still in hiding. And of course, it really could be Saddam, and he knows the truth, and feels compelled to publicly mourn his sons in this way.

I think something is missing here. Saddam is aknowledging his sons are dead. Not just the Americans saying so, but Saddam is saying so as well.

Saddam is admitting that the Hussein dynasty is dead. Even if, by some miracle he comes back to power, he has no heir. His sons are dead. Its over for him and his regime.

Now, as to whether the attacks that continue are Ba'athists or simply jihadis is of less relevance. It appears that there are some in both camps, that both are sniping at our troops. But with Saddam old, and on the run, with 100,000 troops looking for him and a 25 million dollar price on his head, the pro-Ba'athist contingent is severely weakened. One less gang of bad guys is still one less gang.

Which leaves the jihadis, the foreign fighters who are there to throw the Americans out. Which is part of the reason for us being there, to use Iraq as flypaper, and have the jihadis get killed there, instead of coming here to kill civilians.

[And no, I am not saying we are offering up our troops as a sacrifice. I am saying that by being in Iraq, our troops, who are better armed and better trained than your average civilian, are better equipped at killing the jihadis than we are. Doing so in a foreign country gives us more leeway than doing so here at home. It is safer for us, and more dangerous for the jihadis to attack our troops in Iraq, than to have terrorist operations here in the states.]

Orbitron:

Bones' point was that the people shooting at our troops are not pro-Ba'athist, but anti-American.

The problem is that the two groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive (and, indeed, one group may be entirely within the other).

Therefore, the people shooting at us might not only be anti-American, BUT pro-Ba'athist. The question is whether, if the pro-Ba'athists are killed or rendered ineffective (jailed, flee, etc.), there will still be as many American deaths. Bones' implied point (and, presumably, yours) is that it will make little/no difference if the pro-Ba'athists go away. But that is an assertion, based on multiple assumptions.

"Bones' implied point (and, presumably, yours) is that it will make little/no difference if the pro-Ba'athists go away. But that is an assertion, based on multiple assumptions."

- Posted by LRF's Apprentice at July 30, 2003 10:29 AM

My point was that, while LRF said Bones had failed to demonstrate the existence of significant anti-American sentiment in Iraq, the existence of such sentiment is demonstrated nearly every day.

Perhaps the quibble is over the word "significant"? I personally do not consider one or two attacks a week, in a country with 24 million potential attackers, significant.

I don't think human lives are insignificant. Jeez, even the most rah-rah neocon should think that the death or maiming of US service personnel is of some significance. If you don't care about anything else, considering them expendable is not going to help recruitment and retention.

“And of course, it really could be Saddam, and he knows the truth, and feels compelled to publicly mourn his sons in this way.”

We must not forget that Saddam is an elderly sixty-five year old man who probably sleeps less than four hours a day. He is most likely exhausted and unable to be at his Machiavellian best. The end is near and he knows it. It’s far too late for him to be thinking about long term goals.

Can anyone imagine what be currently occurring if Al Gore resided in the White House? Our nation would be a deep doo-doo. The former Vice President would be licking out the rear ends of the vile Old Europeans. Gore doesn’t possess a shred of self respect and dignity.

Orbitron, a war was fought, the war is not completely over even if the core elements were removed. There is still resistance and each death on both sides of the line is tragic, but it is hardly the sort of catastrophe Bones is implying.

Problem with Bone's posts in general is that he is just spewing; he simply doesn't like the war and all that it entails. So when the regimes number two and number three murderurs are put to death themselves in a firefight, he complains that they weren't captured and put on trial. But if a capture/trial had taken place, he would be complaining about illegal trials and citing all of the dead soldiers that would have resulted as evidence of "anti-american" sentiment.

Viciously circular.

Jeez, even the most rah-rah neocon should think that the death or maiming of US service personnel is of some significance.

Could you maybe point out one or two neocons as an example, and explain how they're different from the rest of us? And what is it about neocons that makes them contemptuous of the lives of U.S. service personnel?

Just curious.

"Jeez, even the most rah-rah neocon should think that the death or maiming of US service personnel is of some significance.

Could you maybe point out one or two neocons as an example, and explain how they're different from the rest of us? And what is it about neocons that makes them contemptuous of the lives of U.S. service personnel?

Just curious."

- Posted by David Perron at July 30, 2003 05:19 PM

"Bring 'em on."

As far as why the contempt for human life, I must confess I don't know.

“But if a capture/trial had taken place, he would be complaining about illegal trials and citing all of the dead soldiers that would have resulted as evidence of "anti-american" sentiment.”

I completely agree with you. However, I’m going to take your argument to its logical conclusion: the anti-war crowd is substantially anti-American---and there is no sense in denying this anymore. Bones should seriously consider living in an Old European country. Perhaps they already do? This person deep in their guts despises the United States and desires our humiliation. We can never do anything right and must forevermore be nitpicked and ridiculed.

The Old Europeans and liberal Canadians are vile scum bags. These are people of little moral worth and filled with envy and bitterness. We should at the most feel sorry for them. In no way shape or form, do these mediocrities deserve our respect. Show me someone who adores the United Nations, and I’ll almost certainly will show you a person who wishes us harm. A decent American is compelled to fell contempt for the United Nations. Do we therefore need a “United Nations?” Indeed, we do! The concept is sound, but we earlier failed to take its members sufficiently to task when they behaved in an egregious manner. Sadly, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to his best, but received little help from his fellow politically correct Liberals. Now it may be best to start all over. The present United Nations might be too corrupt to save.

I hope the LRF will approve the following, given that I'm disagreeing with Megan's normally very astute reasoning...

We here at the Institute for Logical Reasoning generally lean conservative, but the Institute itself is officially nonpartisan. Our mission is to uphold the principles and methods of logical reasoning.

Given the nature of this site, the illogical wingnuts tend to come from the left more than the right, although we are certainly keeping an eye on Mr. Thomson's case.

Carry on, good conversationalists!

"...although we are certainly keeping an eye on Mr. Thomson's case."

Please fell free to point out any weaknesses in my arguments. The point that you might find them somewhat startling is not of particular importance.

Liberal Canadian MP Carolyn Parrish: "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards."

The above Freudian slip truly reflects the actual attitudes of the Liberal Canadians and Old Europeans. They are not our allies, but enemies who merely shy away from confronting us in a military manner. This is also true of many Liberal Americans. Joe Lieberman may be the exception.

Orbitron:

I'm not sure you have successfully identified the neocon by its mating call. Perhaps it might be prudent for you to describe what you think a neocon is, and the rest of us can assess whether it actually describes both a well-defined group of people, and that well-defined group of people who actually can be legitimately labeled "neocons". I'm thinking you've got it completely wrong, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Long and short of it is, if you can't tell us what neocon means, it's useless to both you and the rest of us as a label.

David Perron

Sorry. I'm not going to waste my time on word games. The Bush administration's foreign policy is hugely influenced by neo-conservative thought. If you want to argue against that, find someone else.

1. Saddam making a tape and announcing and chest thumping his sons' deaths fits nicely with the general Arab attitude towards war and death. It's a point of pride to thump chests over your dead kin when they are killed in war -- regardless of the circumstances and effects on your situation.

2. The US foreign policy is guided by neo-conservative thought, yes, but it's not a bad thing. Neo-Cons are not imperialist, but rather attempt to be forward looking in actions for foreign policy. The idea is to attempt to head off potential 9-11 and Pearl harbor scenarios by identifying foreign elements that would commit such acts and removing them. It is preferable to use diplomatic means, but force is an option when diplomacy fails.

Unlike past foreign policy, which dictated avoiding war at any cost, primarily becuse of the Soviet threat, neo-con foreign policy involves engagement for the expansion of Liberty. Reagan really had the first neo-con foreign policy, albeit reigned in somewhat thanks to the Soviet threat. Involvement in Beirut, Grenada, etc., were intended to provide an opportunity for liberty. Engagement with dictators was used as a tool for the long term -- it's better to tolerate a non-communist dictator who could influenced in the here and now and be ousted down the road, than it is to allow a communist regime in that would shun us completely. As an example, consider Vietnam & China versus the South American nations that teh US supported. Vietnam and China are still demonstrably communist, and the level of liberty in thos enations is significantly lower than in the various South American nations that were once ruled by right wing dictators. They aren't perfect, but they are better places for the people.

Ah. So "neocon" means precisely what you want it to mean. That makes communication of your thoughts a little difficult, Orbitron. Thanks for supplying the appropriate weighting factor to be applied to your postings.

Let me clarify. Not only do I not know what you mean when you say "neocon", but I strongly suspect that you don't know as well.

Of course he does, David.

Neocon is Bush foreign policy that he disagrees w/.

You can rest assured, however, that spending $15B on AIDS in Africa won't be neo-con; dispatching troops to Liberia wouldn't be neo-con; and negotiating a deal w/ the NKs wouldn't be neo-con.

I have long described myself as a neo-Conservative. Irving Kristol apparently originated the term, but most of us interpret it in our own way. I personally was born and raised in a very Liberal political milieu. How liberal? There were rumors that my grade school teacher might be a Republican---and I was utterly appalled and existentially distraught. Allegations of her being a prostitute may have been easier to handle. I unhesitatingly reject the silliness of an Ayn Rand and the goofiness of the “I’ll Take My Stand” conservatives. Richard Hofstadter deserves our adulation for writing the brilliant “Anti-Intellectualism in America.” Nonetheless, he avoidable the legitimate “anti-intellectualism” that is a most valuable and treasured part of our American heritage. My religious values are essentially Unitarian, but I don’t feel contempt towards those who adhere to more traditional forms of belief.

Our nation’s foreign policy should be proudly and unapologetically pro-American. We are indeed the beacon of hope to the world. America's declared enemies are almost certainly scum of the earth, and should be destroyed if they dare attack our people and institutions. We are essentially the good guys, and they are the bad guys. There’s no reason to overcomplicate the matter. It’s as simple as that.

David, this is exactly what I mean. I'm pretty sure Bush didn't grow up a liberal, and then have his whole family become neoconservative. I think if Orbitron would just refer to "those bastards in the Bush junta" we'd get a much more clear picture of what he means. But if clear communication isn't the objective, neocon will do. But might as well call them Vogons; it's just as useful.

There has also been a lot of discussion that "neocons", used as a perjorative as opposed to a self-description, actually means - Jews.

David Perron:

Why do you insist on insulting me personally? The meaning of the term "neo-conservative" is well known, and it is simply a fact that neo-conservative thought is highly influential in the Bush administration. I am not going to waste my time writing an essay on the topic just to satisfy you.

It'll satisfy me too. If the definition is well-known, give it a shot. I've personally always been confused by competing descriptions. My best shot for a short-hand is that it means the conservative version of an interventionist policy as opposed to the traditional non-interventionist posture of traditional conservatives.

If you wish to take insult, Orbitron, knock yourself out. I'm pretty sure there's nothing inherently insulting in what I wrote. I asked for some clarification and you refused to give it. That in itself is pretty annoying.

Comments are Closed.