quote: Fox News and Robison last week revealed the contents of a 1999 notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) operative. That notebook detailed how Saddam's agents aggressively pursued and entered into a diplomatic, intelligence, and security arrangement with the Taliban and Islamist extremists operating in Afghanistan — years before the 9/11 attacks.
It seems like the GOP has Swiss timing, let the lies ride until the election looms and then tear the Leftist apart with intellegence on WMD's and Terrorist Links, Add to that blowing up Zarquwi, and Ann's book being no. 1 and you get a good month for the right.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*blink* Wait a sec. Is this the SAME notebook that was used as "evidence" years ago?
Along with Santorum's recent batch of misdirection, I'm rather bemused if in fact all conservatives can do now to make their case is restate old claims that've been previously dismissed as if they were new and conclusive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hey, they're recapitulating the planning stages.
"So, Iraq is buying aluminum tubes to use for making nuclear weapons." "No, those tubes are completely unsuited for that." "So, Iraq is buying aluminum tubes to use for making nuclear weapons." "I just said that this couldn't be the case." "Let's get someone who doesn't know what he's talking about in here." . . "So, Iraq is buying aluminum tubes to use for making nuclear weapons." "Yes sir."
All they need now is to screw over our ability to gather intelligence in order to get revenge on someone that's calling them on their lies.
---
It's not fair to hold the administration to only what's true. Everyone knows that reality has a distinct left-wing bias.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I believe it is part of 45,000 pages of Arabic translated documents that are being released Via Fox news from the Pentagon this week, all found by our soldiers in Iraq. Of course the fact that they jibe with previously "discredited" documents says more about the discreditors then those that acted on them.
BC
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Bean, It doesn't matter. We knew we were right. It doesn't matter what the truth is. To them Bush is evil and wrong. But it's ok. We know the truth.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Which Leftist Claims are still around?
Oh...let's see, the claim about people like you being a$$holes, that one's still around, and so far it still hasn't been disproved.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: Which Leftist Claims are still around?
Oh...let's see, the claim about people like you being a$$holes, that one's still around, and so far it still hasn't been disproved.
I think you got their goat Bean. Name calling is always a big sign.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
THT, That's out of line. We don't talk or argue like that here.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Jay's right Bean. To some it doesn't matter what gets unearthed in Iraq. There's a Michael Moore-believing segment of the left out there that still believes Iraq was a peaceful, happy country before the imperialist Americans invaded to steal the oil as part of a conspiracy between the Saudis and the Bush clan.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Kindly give me back my goat.
It's not the differing opinion that drives me crazy, it's the militant, dogmatic approach to what should be a discussion. Inevitably the repeated mantra of self-righteousness negates the need for a "Reply" function on the board, and that can go both ways (right-wingers and conservatives )
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm skeptical. Very, very skeptical.
The administration (by your own admission) has mislead the American public for political gain. ("let the lies ride until the election looms and then tear the Leftist apart with intellegence on WMD's and Terrorist Links")
The administration has shown no capacity for an exit strategy.
The administration made no plans for an insurgency.
I call these last six years very bad for the country, in terms of foreign policy.
With all this incompetance and double dealing-- I hope you understand my skeptiscism that this "notebook" of yours is anything other than a smoke screen.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
No using $$ signs here? However will I add my $.02?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I want to believe that actual inteligence was found, but I have to agree with Scott that it seems so strange that if the government had so much intel that would vindicate their decision, why would they wait til now to suddenly announce it?
Not that I am going to complain about the timing of the inteligence, that would just be me clammering for any reason to complain about the government, but I cannot help but wonder about the truthfulness of all this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Incidentally, if this isn't the same notebook as before - without a link, it's hard to know anything about it - I withdraw my comparison to the planning. For the "Iraq = Al Queda" thing, not Santorum's "Ah hah. They had some long expired chemical weapons." thing.
--- edit: At this point, I'd like for intelligence to be found too. I believed what I was told going in and I supported the war. I had to go around apologizing to people for believing my government would be honest with me about something like this. It would be nice to know that even if they didn't know things when they told me they knew them, some turned out to be true.
Also, it would help us out immeasurably on the international scene if at least some of the stuff we told people to sell the war turned out to be true.
Hoever, considering what happened when I trusted the Bush administration about the war intelligence initially and the transparently dishonest things supporters like Santorum are doing, I'm extremely skeptical.
[ July 06, 2006, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I want to believe that actual inteligence was found, but I have to agree with Scott that it seems so strange that if the government had so much intel that would vindicate their decision, why would they wait til now to suddenly announce it?
What you are experiencing is a common complain among many conservatives, like myself, about this administration. On the Iraq issue, as well as on almost every public issue out there this president and administration are almost incapable of explaining themselves and mustering articlulable arguements to support themselves.
It is a good thing that this administration doesn't govern by polls and tries to lead. But sometimes I think they underestimate the public's ability to shift gears on a policy message. So they stick to the same spin or message they've always done. Right now they're thinking we don't want to reshift the focus to the reasons for going to war. "Been there done that."
It is so common that I read something that clearly and concisely explains or argues for a particular issue and I think, "Darn, why can't the administration just say this or do that to illustrate thier point." It's maddening sometimes.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Not that I am going to complain about the timing of the inteligence, that would just be me clammering for any reason to complain about the government, but I cannot help but wonder about the truthfulness of all this.
I think the timing is part of the problem. Everybody knows there's an election this November, so anytime the administration drops something like this on the public (or on FoxNews) everybody takes it with a grain of salt. So even when I want to believe that we were right, I know that the upcoming midterms are what drove the decision to release this information -- and in all probability, no one will follow up on it after Election Day.
--j_k
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
A link to news about this notebook would be a good start.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mig, I've never seen the Bush administration as having major problems getting their message out. The problems I see them having is that their messages rarely seem to match up with reality.
We've turned so many corners on Iraq that the shape there can no longer be described by Euclidian geometry. So far, their "We were right. See, here is the proof." attempts have a shelf life of maybe 4 days before they are exploded. I remember their "mobile chem-warfare labs" that turned out to be anything but, just like their experts told them before the adminstration pushed them. I remember the "Iraq had major links to Al Queda" thing that Tom referenced above, that turned out to be a single meeting that nothing came of. I remember the "There were terrorist training camps." bit that conveniently didn't mention that the camps were in a part of the country the Saddam and his government had no control over. Just recently, I watched as one of my Senators embarrassed himself and me by the blatantly dishonest WMD thing.
However, I don't remember all that many clear, cogent explanations for what the administration was doing in Iraq that relied on things that were true. As you seem to run into these all over the place, I'd appreciate if you could share them with us.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The article is written, apparently, by the same guy who is publishing the notebook.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The document as so far translated does not seem THAT significant or even useful. But hey maybe they have tons more to show us.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Most Leftists reject both the strict Marxist and the Marxist-Lennonist schools, but hold on, mistakenly in my belief, to forms of Socialism, although Tony Blaire's admirable, if confused, "third-way" school is popular outside of France and Eastern Europe.
I am not sure what discussion you inteded to have, O legume-enumerator, but the title definitly implied that it involved "Leftist claims" leading me, perhaps naïvely, to assume that Leftist claims, rather than anything else, might be the topic of discusion.
Note: this was a joke, but the use of Leftist, a strictly economic term, to refer to any belief system which is not actualy economic does bother me, becouse the current trend to ignore Socialist doctrine has worrying implications for conservatives, such as my self, who favour some form of societal "safty-net" and/or identify as being, in general, anti-war.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
*cyber-wedgies* Pel.
---
Pel, You may be received differently if your posts didn't seem so centered around showing people how smart you are. As it is, you're just a few steps away from getting a cyber-swirlie.
[ July 06, 2006, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Meh. It works as an epithet, much in the same way "Liberal" does.
--j_k
[ July 06, 2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I never heard that Saddam was connected to the Taliban in the run-up to the war, only that he was connected to Al-Qaeda (That was based on the testimony of a single person who was tortured in Egypt until he said that, which he later recanted). Saddam's interests didn't lie with the Taliban. Iraq was a secular country while the Taliban's Afghanistan was based in Islamic law.
quote: The article is written, apparently, by the same guy who is publishing the notebook.
That's weird.
quote:Along with Santorum's recent batch of misdirection, I'm rather bemused if in fact all conservatives can do now to make their case is restate old claims that've been previously dismissed as if they were new and conclusive.
Yes. Santorum's "evidence" will do nothing but discredit him further. I'm pretty sure he's going to lose his seat even if the Democrats don't retake anything.
quote:The administration (by your own admission) has mislead the American public for political gain. ("let the lies ride until the election looms and then tear the Leftist apart with intellegence on WMD's and Terrorist Links")
I don't support government by dishonesty, does anyone really?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Mr.Squicky wrote: However, I don't remember all that many clear, cogent explanations for what the administration was doing in Iraq that relied on things that were true. As you seem to run into these all over the place, I'd appreciate if you could share them with us.
Too many to note here after 5 years of news and analysis. But two stand out. First, I'll direct you to one of the best sourses of analysis on the Iraq issue: Christopher Hitchen. Some of the most cogent analysis on Iraq has come from Hitchens, a fellow who is otherwise not a conservative on most issues. His articles for Slate.com are especially informative. Links to his work can be found at: http://www.hitchensweb.com/
I also recommend that you read regularly read the work of Victor Davis Hanson whose work regularly appears at NationalReviewOnline and can be found at: http://www.victorhanson.com/
You need to read more than leftest Blogs and CNN and the rest of the mainstream media reports to understand and get a perspective on Iraq. Try not to just read the people you already agree with and you might learn something. (Sorry, if that sounds condescending, that's not my intent. I just can't think of a nicer way of saying it.) read
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Mig, it would help if you didn't assume he only read leftist blogs and CNN. That would go a long way to sounding "not condescending". Even if you think that's all he's done.
-Bok
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, unread, or unintelligent, Mig.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mig, You may want to consider that you don't know me that well. I'm a registered Republican who volunteered to work on the John McCain campaign in 2000. I even mostly believe in the importance and transformational effects of populist governments, although I mostly agree with Francis Fukuyama that the current attempts to do so amount to some pretty colossal screw-ups.
I feel pretty confident in my abilities to judge the Iraq situation, but, as I've said, I'd be interested in seeing what you have that disagrees with my assesment. I am unlikely to be moved by "You don't read anything except people you already agree with. Here's a dump of what two guys have written." Point me to specific things and maybe don't immediately assume that I lack integrity and I think I might be more interested in putting out some effort.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, unread, or unintelligent, Mig.
Though I thought it was at least a little funny to watch someone talk to Squick the way Squick talks to everyone else Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Mr Squicky, You said that you "don't remember all that many clear, cogent explanations for what the administration was doing in Iraq that relied on things that were true" I gave you two sources that regularly do just that. If you can't remember any clear, cogent explanations for the war, you haven't been looking very hard.
Kwea, Not my intent to sound condescending. My apologies if you were upset. Try not to assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they think you are ignorant, unread, or unintelligent. Most of my friends disagree with me most of the time (I have way to many liberal friends) and I don't think any of then are any of the above. Why assume something like that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can hardly wait for a recap from the Defense Department.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: You need to read more than leftest Blogs and CNN and the rest of the mainstream media reports to understand and get a perspective on Iraq. Try not to just read the people you already agree with and you might learn something. (Sorry, if that sounds condescending, that's not my intent. I just can't think of a nicer way of saying it.) read
You couldn't come up with two specific articles you would like everyone here to read? Maybe even one? One article, since there have been so many? I agree with squicky that a link dump is really not the best way to get people to look at your side of the issue.
Not that I am for either side, but I really don't like it when anyone in an argument suggests the other side is ill informed, and then provides such non-specific direction, (or in some similar cases claims that the work of another person "represents" their viewpoint, so read that person). This kind of argument just rings false for me, because if you don't think you're talking to someone who can keep up in the discussion, then why are you talking to them at all?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
CNN, which has a double-bias(highly pro-American, my friends in Mexico and Hong Kong pointed this out, and, watching it in Italy, I concured, and vaguely in suport of the Democratic Party), is much less biased than the National Review, which is published by a Republican think-tank.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Pelegius, The National Review is a Republican think-tank? Oh, if only that were true.
Several of you have noted that I should have referenced a single article instead of links to two opinion makers. My intent was to show two writer that regularly present concise and cogent analysis in favor of the war. But if you want one good article that details what's wrong with the left's rhetoric on the war, see this article by Hitchens in which he addresses the lies put forth by M. Moore in Fahrenhiet 911. http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/ That does a good job of refuting the most rediculous arguement against the war.
Then there's this interesting article from before the war with this telling quote:
quote:In the present case of Iraq, a pre-emptive war is justified by its advocates on the grounds of past Iraqi aggressions and the logical presumption of future ones—which would make it partly retaliatory and partly preventive. This is fraught with the danger of casuistry since if no sinister weaponry is found before the war begins, then the war is re-justified on the grounds that it prevented such weapons from being developed. (And if the weapons are found, as one suspects they will be, after the intervention has taken place, then they could be retrospectively justified as needful for defense against an attack that was obviously coming.)
See http://www.slate.com/id/2076478/ The extensive stockpiles of WMDs believed to be there haven't materialized. But the Bush administration repeatedly said before the war that its purpose was to stop Iraq before it became and imminent threat. It never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat, the arguement was that we can't wait until it reaches that point. The recent finds of hidden and still deadly WMDs and and disclosures of ties between Bin Ladeen and the Taliban and Saddam further suport the initial justification for the war: Saddam is a danger in the making and must be stopped before it is too late. But some people would just can't "move on" beyond the Bush lied view and won't belive any thing that refutes thier world view.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mig, I don't have the time to fully address it right now, but I'd suggest you look at Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. before you make claims about what was said in the lead up to the war.
This was the speech that pushed me over to a war supporter. It was specifically the information contained in this speech that I later had to appologize to people for believing.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: The extensive stockpiles of WMDs believed to be there haven't materialized. But the Bush administration repeatedly said before the war that its purpose was to stop Iraq before it became and imminent threat. It never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat, the arguement was that we can't wait until it reaches that point. The recent finds of hidden and still deadly WMDs and and disclosures of ties between Bin Ladeen and the Taliban and Saddam further suport the initial justification for the war: Saddam is a danger in the making and must be stopped before it is too late. But some people would just can't "move on" beyond the Bush lied view and won't belive any thing that refutes thier world view.
The Bush administration never claimed Saddam was an imminent threat?? Of course they did, repeatedly.
quote: "This is about imminent threat." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Absolutely." • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended." • President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended." • Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." • President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations." • President Bush, 3/16/03
link There are a more quotes at the link.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
National Review isn't really 'published' by a think-tank on a technical level, but it is essentially a think tank publication, being joined at the hip to the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.
They're a pay-to-play organization, especially given that they are the type of magazine that never -- never -- turns a profit.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Morbo,
Why use selective quotes to misrepresent the justification for war? Calling Saddam a threat is not the same as saying there was an imminent threat. The point was to take him out before it got to that point. My guess is that to many opponents of the war were too busy Bush-hating and still reeling from the 2000 election that they simply refused to listen to what was actually be said. Why do the opponents of the war think it is necessary to misrepresent the justifications for the war? It appears that for war opponents misrepresentation is probably easier than sticking with the facts.
Here are two quotes from before the war that more fully explain the rational for the war:
Quote from Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union Address:
quote: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
quote:“Clearly if Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he is doing now this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way," she said.
History is littered with cases of inaction that led to have grave consequences for the world. We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who ended up being a tremendous global threat, and killing thousands, and indeed millions of people, should we have stopped in their tracks," she said.
I love Google! After am, admittedly brief, search the only quote I could of a politician who called Iraq an “imminent threat” is this quote from then Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in September 2002:
quote:"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush – he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country." Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."
Article with this quote and a few others from pols who have backtracked on the nature of the threat posed by Iraq, including Pres. Clinton, Wesley Clark, and Pelosi: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50371 Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That does a good job of refuting the most rediculous arguement against the war.
I just want to point out that refuting the most ridiculous argument against war is not the same thing as offering an argument for war.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Spinsanity has a good, apperently unbiased look at the "imminent threat" debate.
But Mig, if you believe Saddam's regime wasn't an "imminent threat", the question becomes, then why was there such a rush to war?
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
quote:Why use selective quotes to misrepresent the justification for war? Calling Saddam a threat is not the same as saying there was an imminent threat. The point was to take him out before it got to that point. My guess is that to many opponents of the war were too busy Bush-hating and still reeling from the 2000 election that they simply refused to listen to what was actually be said. Why do the opponents of the war think it is necessary to misrepresent the justifications for the war? It appears that for war opponents misrepresentation is probably easier than sticking with the facts.
Political debate rule #1: Always accuse your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That does a good job of refuting the most rediculous arguement against the war.
I just want to point out that refuting the most ridiculous argument against war is not the same thing as offering an argument for war.
And I'd like to point out that refuting the most ridiculous arguments against the war is not the same as refuting the most cogent and rational arguments against a war. I'd think the latter would be more pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Morbo, I have to agree with you that the Spinsanity aticle is overall unbiased. Thanks for the link.
As to why go to war if the threat was not "imminent," to again quote from Bush's state of the union: "If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late." In my words, then and now: It was too dangerous to wait until the threat became imminent. We'd be faced today with a situation like we have now in N. Korea, once Saddam fully developed his capabilities, with a fully armed unstable dictator. Or worse yet, an unprovoked attack against us or his neighbours, either directly or through allied terrorists. It's not like Saddam had shown any previous reluctance to attack his neighbours or use WMD, he'd done both. Every European government, and Rep. and Dem leader with access to intelligence belived in the threat then (as demonstrated by the quotes in the link above). Once the inspectors were gone, I belive it likely that Saddam would have reconstituted his program.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:We'd be faced today with a situation like we have now in N. Korea, once Saddam fully developed his capabilities, with a fully armed unstable dictator.
So we pay next to no attention to North Korea, a much bigger threat at that moment (and now), and focus on Saddam? Why?
-pH
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So now you don't even have to actually be a threat to get invaded - you just have pose a threat that you might become a threat at some unspecified time in the future? If that's true then what country aren't we justified in invading?
The evidence that this was not the justification for war that the Bush administration was presenting us four years ago is that all but the most neoconservative of Americans would have seen how false the above justification is. Unless trying to retroactively justify something that was already done by "their side", I think most people would pretty quickly realize that being a threat of a threat is not enough to merit an invasion. The fact that about half of Americans thought the war was a good idea indicates that Bush had convinced them that Saddam's threat was very imminent indeed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, that's just what we were persuaded to think. It has since come out that, as many people in the intelligence community were saying, Saddam did not have any nuclear weapons programs, our interpretations of intelligence in favor of Saddam having nuclear weapons programs were downright ludicrous, and our primary source on the subject was (as he had done many times before) outright lying.
Note: I was for the war (though I think much of how it was carried out was dramatically bungled) , and for a mildly similar reason. I felt (and feel) that Saddam's eventual death would have led to huge destabilization in the region, significant enough to, in combination with his blatant violations of the terms of the cessation of the Gulf War, warrant an invasion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and we knew from sources high in Saddam's government that his ministers repeatedly lied to him to avoid disfavor, that the military's organization was abysmal, and that incompetents were continuously being promoted due to political/familial connections.
There was no chance of Saddam 'reconstituting' a nuclear weapons program (that even at its best was hobbled by extreme technological inferiority).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:We'd be faced today with a situation like we have now in N. Korea, once Saddam fully developed his capabilities, with a fully armed unstable dictator.
So we pay next to no attention to North Korea, a much bigger threat at that moment (and now), and focus on Saddam? Why?
-pH
I think NK demonstrates what happens when evil regimes are left alone UNTIL they do something.
But at the same time its hard for me to identify at what points we can strike first without overstepping our bounds into "Minority Report" territory.
I've never heard anybody argue that Saddam had he been left alone would not have commited further acts of evil. I've never heard anyone argue that he did not want nuclear weapons. Bush does deserve alittle credit, when AQ Kahn sold nuclear plans to NK, Bush let Musharif deal with it rather than declaring war on pakistan (man that would have sucked if he had.)
When we found out NK had nukes it was impossible to tell exactly who else AQ Kahn had sold plans to. If Kahn was willing to give those plans to NK why would Iraq be a different story? Maybe it is, but I just don't see how.
But perhaps there is a way where we can prove intent and use that as basis to strike. I really don't see how we please everyone. Either we wait for blood to be shed so we can clearly identify who the enemy is, or we nip the problem in the bud and risk the scorn of those who speculate that we guessed wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Besides the US long having been partial to Pakistan, there's one big reason the US will never be declaring war on Afghanistan: they have a small stockpile of definitely working nuclear weapons. Also, we desperately needed their cooperation to make significant headway in capturing Al Quaeda and Taliban leadership (given many of said leadership retreated to the border regions of Pakistan from Afghanistan).
We know pretty well who AQ Khan sold knowledge to; Iraq is not one of them, and for good reason: they already had access to plenty of plans for nuclear facilities (from the late 70s/early 80s). However, plans aren't very useful absent certain capabilities. NK had those capabilities to a decent extent before Khan sold them weapons information, Iraq did not. Without French assistance, Iraq could never have created the Osiraq reactor, and they never had much of a chance to learn from it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I think NK demonstrates what happens when evil regimes are left alone UNTIL they do something.
Then why not deal with that, which is a much more immediate problem, before even THINKING about what other people are going to go insane and be evil dictators and start shooting missles willy-nilly?
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:I think NK demonstrates what happens when evil regimes are left alone UNTIL they do something.
Then why not deal with that, which is a much more immediate problem, before even THINKING about what other people are going to go insane and be evil dictators and start shooting missles willy-nilly?
-pH
How do you suggest the US could have dealt with NK and not had anybody screaming "Aggression with no cause!" before they aquired nuclear weapons?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Because nobody did that when we attacked the Middle East or anything...
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If we had stopped dragging our feet on our treaty obligations to them we would have had significant leverage to force the removal of the nuclear material they had under seal (which they removed from seal after declaring the treaty void).
NK was still playing mostly by the rules for years after that axis of evil comment. Only when we essentially dropped diplomatic contact despite still being under obligation to provide assistance in constructing light water reactors to provide electricity did NK break the seals on their existing weapons grade material and their reactors and restart their weapons program.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So its something of self-fulfilling prophecy: we think they are developing a nuke program, so they have no choice but to go ahead and develop one. Or rather, there is now no reason whatsoever to put off developing one.
Are we all seriously this stupid? I mean, this whole world situation, haven't we seen the SAME thing going on for a thousand years of history? Don't we recognize how these things start, how they progress, how they turn into bigger problems before they get better? ARG- the world is a vampire.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I believed that Saddam was trying to make WMDs. I am conservative and I voted for Bush--the second election. I thought Saddam lied. He broke...what was it?...14 resolutions/agreements?
He was playing with the international community on a very sensitive subject post 9/11. Legally I felt we were justified to invade. I never heard about AQ being a reason to go to Iraq. I don't quite understand the rabid "Bush lied to us about WMD" sentiment.
Maybe I haven't looked at the sources close enough. It seemed the international community agreed he was a threat and had weapons based on Saddam's actions and their intelligence.
That being said...
I never thought for a moment that WMD, AQ, or broken resolutions were the reasons we went to war. I never thought it was about oil--at least not about immediately controlling or stealing Iraqi oil.
I think it is about Bush's Roadmap to Peace--an American presence in the Middle East. A line of countries we can use for support and bases for whatever military/economic reason the administration sees fit. Saddam's stuborness, ego, and shady past gave the administration an excuse to act.
We still have bases in Germany and Korea. There was not exit strategy Iraq because we have no plan to exit. I don't think Iraq is a mistake--as in a heaping pile of consequences the administration couldn't/didn't foresee.
I think, with the exception of prison scandals and the horrific actions of a few soldiers, everything is going according to plan. I am not sure where it is leading us.
I am now deciding if I regret how I voted, not that it would make a difference. I feel lied to, not about the intelligence but about the motive. I am not sure if we are trying to create a democratic streak in the Middle East that favors America and democracy, or if we are trying to destabilize the region. Let it blow to hell and then move in and help with rebuilding a "better" Middle East.
I just don't know. A lot of people have died and a lot more will die. I believe they know what they are doing. I just wish I could be convinced I agree with it.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:fugu: If we had stopped dragging our feet on our treaty obligations to them we would have had significant leverage to force the removal of the nuclear material they had under seal (which they removed from seal after declaring the treaty void).
NK was still playing mostly by the rules for years after that axis of evil comment. Only when we essentially dropped diplomatic contact despite still being under obligation to provide assistance in constructing light water reactors to provide electricity did NK break the seals on their existing weapons grade material and their reactors and restart their weapons program.
We have the same obligation to Iran now. They are also a signatory to the NPT, which gives them the right to nuclear power sources. If we try to deny them that we are in breach of the treaty. How then would we have the right to enforce the other provisions of the treaty?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think it is about Bush's Roadmap to Peace--an American presence in the Middle East.
Oddly, you capitalize this despite the fact that Bush has never articulated a roadmap to peace, nor explained this plan to us. You do him too much credit, I believe, by assuming that he has such a sensible plan, when he has completely failed to actually describe one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bush's road map to peace, as you state it, sounds frighteningly close to outright American imperialism in that part of the world.
That's just as scary as any of the other reasons I've heard for the war, maybe even more so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nato: no, we don't. The NPT only means a country is eligible to buy certain technologies; nobody is required to sell them. Furthermore, nobody (except the select few) is allowed to use them as part of weapons programs, and Iran is investing in technologies that are only cost effective if one either has dozens of nuclear power plants or is working on a weapons program. Iran does not have dozens of nuclear power plants, nor any plans to build them in the foreseeable future.
The treaty we had with NK required the provision of light water reactors by the US and South Korea (two LWRs, iirc). This was entirely separate from the NPT, and was in exchange for them sealing their other reactors (that produced higher quantities of weapons grade material) and all extant weapons grade material. On a side note, NK is unable to produce sufficient electricity by itself without nuclear power.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Bush's road map to peace, as you state it, sounds frighteningly close to outright American imperialism in that part of the world.
That's just as scary as any of the other reasons I've heard for the war, maybe even more so.
SSSSHHHHH!!! Don't break down the euphamisms!!!!
A roadmap to peace which includes 200,000 deaths. Lovely. Also a roadmap to peace which involves agitating against foreign government until they break off relations with us, then using that as an excuse for attacking them. Also lovely.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
1.
quote: believe it is part of 45,000 pages of Arabic translated documents that are being released Via Fox news
"Released via Fox News"? So they really *have* given up any premise of being an impartial media outlet, and taken up the mantle of being a full-time propaganda outfit?
Sarcasm aside, if there were verifiable facts here, why release it by way of the one agency that would run with something like this without an ounce of skepticism? And why now, if it was uncovered in 1999?
2. Is Bean Counter going to continue to put up this kind of inflammatory subject, avoid reply on the, shall we say, contraversy of the claims on which the post is based, lather, rinse, and repeat? And if so, is there any reason anyone should continue to treat this kind of behavior with the seriousness one normally accords to discussion?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:2. Is Bean Counter going to continue to put up this kind of inflammatory subject, avoid reply on the, shall we say, contraversy of the claims on which the post is based, lather, rinse, and repeat? And if so, is there any reason anyone should continue to treat this kind of behavior with the seriousness one normally accords to discussion?
The art of managing a forum involves making a lot of calls based on preserving the health of online discussion. There's plenty of hedge-trimming based on a macro analysis of a forum community.
People who have run forums for a time begin to understand that individuals such as Bean Counter represent more than just a controversial position; instead, they are an out-and-out threat towards productive debate.
They often end up getting removed before they can enervate a community. Usually, it happens right around the time that people are realizing that the individual in question is really only interested in hashing out a vitriolic position, without necessarily being interested -- or able -- to handle reasonable charges against their standpoint.
Fits with BC: in but a single post, he can derail an erstwhile reasonable controversy into a contentious debate against him alone. Walking meta syndrome.
In many cases, though, moderation is unnecessary. The messy side effect of acting like a Bean Counter is that one becomes incessantly badgered and will often become hounded, naturally, off the forum.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:::sits back blinking:::
Actually that made total sense. Thanks.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Your in luck, today I am a liberal! What we need to do is pull our troops in and cut our losses. After all we cannot hold South Korea against the North, we should put our troops too work evacuating Isreal and take away the reason the Arab's are so mad at us. If we let them have the Middle East they can work out a better way for themselves to live then we know, it will be fair for everyone. Their's is a religion of peace after all.
With all of our shinny eggs in one basket we can last forever, keep our population under control with enforced birth permits and temporary fertillity blocking for teens and free abortions on demand. We can tap into the wind and water flow and the sun and get in tune with the world around us, we will eat less and live longer because we will give up smoking and drinking and turn our Weapons of Mass Destruction into atttractive paper weights. Yeah... I can feel it...
BC
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Wow, look at the straw fly!
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thank you for applying, BC. We'll call you.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:we will give up smoking and drinking
Awe, c'mon! Don't tell me smoking and drinking have political affiliations now too! Well, I'm not willing to give them up, so I guess I'm a conservative now.
Hmm, all of a sudden there's a strange clenching sensation in my hind-regions.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It is your dormant homophobia, you must work it out by putting ever larger objects in your rectum until you are at peace with all of Gaia's Children.
BC
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BC has tried this with his head. Still looking for something bigger, though.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BC has gnawed his way out of his straightjacket again...
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I'm beginning to suspect that Bean Counter is a liberal, and that the parody above is actually a smaller, opposite-day version of his entire posting history.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Puppy: he DOES make conservatives look bad to the point that it can't be an accident.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Hey! This sounds like a fun game!
I'm an Ultra Right-Wing Conservative now! I support pulling out the troops, but only so that they're not in the path of our nukes when we decide to turn the entire middle east into one gigantic, dune-shaped sheet of glass.
Then, when we're done, we can establish English as the primary language of the US and abolish all other religions and place Baptist Christianity as the one and only religion taught in schools.
Once complete, we will start a campaign of "small government" that actually includes removing all sorts of social welfare and funnelling that money into the first company to bribe us the most.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Could we please ease up a bit on the crudeness and the personal attacks, no matter how much we may think they are invited? Thanks.
--PJ
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honey, I think you are supposed to exaggerate their claims.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry, Papa.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Honey, I think you are supposed to exaggerate their claims.
Ouch! Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: With all of our shinny eggs in one basket we can last forever, keep our population under control with enforced birth permits and temporary fertillity blocking for teens and free abortions on demand.
Um...how about education about and availability of birth control and the morning-after pill?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Why put our children under that kind of time pressure? They have basic competence tests to pass, Middle School teachers to have sex with and the new Grand Theft Auto to play. Our teachers need paid seminars on bringing up abortion rights in class, preferably someplace warm with lots of drunk coeds.
BC
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
*sarcasm-o-meter goes off the charts*
Wow...well...ok then. I retract my post if you don't want to discuss it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Quick! Someone schedule an election while Bean is in "opposite mode" so we can get him to vote for someone decent!
Posted by Jean Valjean (Member # 9565) on :
Someone decent...politician....someone decent...politician....does not compute!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I'm beginning to suspect that Bean Counter is a liberal, and that the parody above is actually a smaller, opposite-day version of his entire posting history.
So he is Stephen Colbert to the Neo-cons? And this is a reverse-reverse lampoon?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Why put our children under that kind of time pressure? They have basic competence tests to pass, Middle School teachers to have sex with and the new Grand Theft Auto to play. Our teachers need paid seminars on bringing up abortion rights in class, preferably someplace warm with lots of drunk coeds.
BC
Because the liberals are pushing the competence tests? Are you high? That's not a rhetorical question like I sometimes use it... I mean, are you Bean Counter, stoned? Or do you think that everyone here is stoned and will somehow appreciate your absurdly twisted lack of a sense of humor?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Your in luck, today I am a liberal!
A strange phenom occurs in individuals who are generally considered to be 'overly' partisan. It's similar to zealotry, but I don't know if it has any perfect word to describe it. The closest I have come is to call it 'ideological horseblinding.'
It's a strange mental landscape, where information is divided into camps, and becomes accepted or rejected based on convenience and conviction.
Information that supports or originates from one's own ideological 'camp' is accepted without reasonable critique. It does not have to pass any hurdles. It is accepted as Writ. It is propagated as fact. If a mistaken principle or untrue fact is ever once personally established as fact, it is a back-breaking endeavor for a burden of proof to force mental retraction of that 'fact.' It requires overwhelming -- overwhelming -- rebuttal, on a consistent basis, and yet these errant beliefs are liable to continue indefinitely at the whim of trusted ideological sources. The right sort of Austrian economist will believe something forever and ever as long as lewrockwell.com continues preaching it as truth. The right sort of Conservative will trust in any portrayal of national affairs that comes from the mouth or pen of Ann Coulter. As long as the accepted source holds the belief, they are nigh assured to accept it and share it, without any operable internal contention or review.
On the other side of the coin, any information or positions originating from those that one has been essentially conditioned to regard as The Ideological Enemy (Liberals for Conservatives, Conservatives for Liberals, Statists for Libertarians, etc) is automatically assumed to be wrong and bad and terrible and totally misguided, perhaps even evil under the right circumstances. Automatically. There's no real questioning, nor critical thought or appraisal. The disparity of one's willingness to accept or reject information based on ideological convenience creates a self-managed environment of indoctrination. It's downright fascinating, because it quickly accumulates and solidifies a completely warped worldview.
The acid test for ideological horseblinding is to ask someone how they, personally, would imagine advocating the gestalt position of their political opponents. "Imagine yourself to be a run-of-the-mill Liberal today, Bean Counter. How would you define your position? What social and economic systems do you trust?" etc etc.
Since the worldview of an ideologically horseblinded individual will without fail have no capacity to create anything remotely approximating a real-life portrayal of The Enemy, you will be allowed a peek into true and partisan delusion. You will receive a hideous amalgamation of the broad, warped strawmen and negative stereotypes that the ideological fringe quite literally assumes to be the truth of their opponents. What's really amazing about it is that it will bear a comically potent nonresemblance to reality, and if you mention this, they won't believe you at all. They quite literally assume that they know the opponent better than their opponent could possibly know themselves.
Brilliant, isn't it? For a brief, shining second, you are allowed a terrifying glimpse into a void of axiom and invection which is principally and violently opposed to the world of empirical reason and critical thought. The only question left is as to whether you are witnessing true indoctrination or genius parody.
Anyway, great job on portraying the liberals as pacifist eugenicists. Why, before your enlightening and piercing portrayal of the Left, I would have personally thought that the combination was assuredly impossible. I'm sure it works out fascinatingly in your head, however.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I predict Australia will be out before Christmas, and the US by next June.
Edit to add: of Iraq (obviously). Wow this forum knows how to move.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Samprimary,
Your recent posts have been wonderfully insightful and interesting.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I agree with Bob: that was a good post Sam, and it's not the only one lately.
Of course, I'm wearing my ideological horseblinders, so of course I agree.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)