posted
If I believe I have something wrong so I go to a doctor, and he says I have a cancerous tumor. Then I go to another and he says the same thing. And another and he says the same thing. And another, etc. I even have a History of cancer in my family. In fact 2 years before I had a family member die of cancer suddenly and unnexpectedly.
So I go tell my family members that I have a cancerous tumor. The majority agree I should have it operated on.
So I decide to go and have the operation. After the operation it is found out that the tumor was benign.
Did I lie to my family?
Who lied then? Who is responsible for the lie?
Should I have had the tumor removed anyways?
That is the way I see Iraq/Sadaam/Intelligence/Bush.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only if you also ignore the doctors who tell you that it's not as bad as others thought, or doctors that tell you it's better to treat the tumor with different, less-invasive therapies.
And you'd have to throw in the advice of doctors who think you should have more tissue removed to avoid future problems, like looting.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said on the other thread, if the doctors tell you that the tests suggest you likely have a cancer, and you tell everyone else that you definitely have a cancer, you have lied.
Furthermore, the Iraq situation is more like the case where Bush is the doctor, and the American people are the patient - because it is America that Bush is "operating" on. If your doctor tells you that you definitely have cancer, you have surgery, the surgery has negative side effects, and you don't have cancer, then you have reason not only to say the doctor lied to you, but also to sue him. This is true even if the doctor can point back to some test results that suggested you probably do have cancer. Doctors and Presidents are supposed to know the difference between what is certain to be true and what the test results suggest.
quote: As I said on the other thread, if the doctors tell you that the tests suggest you likely have a cancer, and you tell everyone else that you definitely have a cancer, you have lied.
No, it's the doctors telling you in their professional opinion that there's no doubt there's cancer, and you relaying that the doctors say there's no doubt there's cancer.
quote: The U.N. Doctors said they could find no cancer, and needed more time for tests.
No, they're the "friends of the family" unless you believe that Kerry believes them more than his own personal Doctors.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, what Chris said. Chad : friends of the family who happened to be doctors too, at last. And who examinated the patient as well as the "official" doctors.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What intelligence report ever said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs? I've heard many that "estimated" there were WMDs, or said it was likely the WMDs were still there, but point me to one specifically that said we knew with certainty that such a program existed.
posted
If all the doctors told the same lie, then there was a conspiracy...possibly a plan to divide the spoils.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, I should hope that you select a doctor to remove your tumor who has a clear plan as to how to monitor your recovery, and that you had made sure your insurance was going to pay for the whole process.
Which Bush has done and is monitoring their recovery, which is happening, but there are good days and bad days and the recovery is slow. Also, you do have insurance, unless you commander in chief Kery gives it away to foreign countries as he is planning on doing on election.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: unless you commander in chief Kery gives it away to foreign countries as he is planning on doing on election.
Chad, I would like you to state why you are so sure we want to involve in your policy. As I stated in another thread, you internal politic is your business. The international politic is as much ours than yours. And anyway, "foreign" does not mean "barbarian who wish to destroy us", right ? I can tell you that if the French chosed your future president, it wouldn't be Kerry neither Bush !
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What intelligence report ever said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs?
The exact same ones Bush, Cheney and Powell listed and YOU quoted.
This wasn't Bush, Cheney and Powell deciding he had WMD's. This was the intelligence committees of the WORLD deciding he had them based on their evidence.
Are you not seeing that what Bush, Cheney and Powell said WERE the intelligence reports. Were the opinions of the intelligence committees of the world.
Read the Butler report. Read ANY and all of the US intelligence reports discussed in the 9/11 commission.
Heck why don't you just believe the 9/11 commission and what they said? It's very clear. They said quite blankly (and to your arguments absolute killing) that the intelligence was faulty and that Bush didn't lie. Can't get much clearer than that.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: This was the intelligence committees of the WORLD deciding he had them based on their evidence.
Well, I can tell you our intelligence told us there were no WMD, so maybe it wasn't the entire world's intelligence but only the American one. And Bush must have known about what ours said, or he is really stupid. So liar or moron, you choose.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And then some doctors are affiliated with a certain hospital. When the hospital invests in some new equipment they send out a memo urging the doctors to use it.
In this case the hospital had just bought up huge amounts of commodities (gold, platinum, oil), liquidated at bargain basement prices, and they needed someone to start an inflationary cycle.
Fortunately the hospital has doctors in both camps, so they didn't have to wait long. Some doctors stirring up trouble with their carcinogens, and some rushing in with a scalpel to cut the tumors out.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if your father, who also had to deal with the same type of cancer, told you from his experience that an operation would only destabilize your body and that containment is the wiser course of action?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, here's an analogy for you. But this is a lot more like what we are actually talking about. You go see a doctor. He tells you that because of a history of cancer and because of symptoms that you have a marrow cancer in your legbone, but he needs to do some further tests to verify it. If it turns out you have the cancer, he's going to have to amputate. There's just one problem. You won't let him do the X-ray. You also won't let him do the CT Scan. You won't let him take a blood sample. You won't let him do any of that stuff. So you go home. But then it turns out that your cancer is a strange and new type of cancer. It is contagious! It could hurt or wipe out hundreds! So the doctors tell you you can't leave the house. Occasionally you try to leave, and sometimes you are even able to sneak out, but you certainly can't spread the disease with the short leash they keep you on. However, Somebody in your town is discovered to have ebola. A dozen people die horrible disgusting and messy deaths. The Mayor declares war on disease. About a year later, they still haven't found the source of the ebola. So you hear a knock on your door. They tell you that you have run out of time. You MUST allow the tests to confirm whether you have or do not have this new and contagious cancer. You slam the door in their face. You start to notice an increase in surveillance on your house. One day you look out the window and see a SWAT van sitting in your neighbors driveway with a small artillery piece pointed at you. Finally, when half the police force of the city has taken up positions in your neighborhood (though not on your property) you agree to let the doctors come and take their blood tests. The doctors come in with their machines, prop your leg up on a table, and stick the needle in to take the test. But before they have a chance to pull up on the plunger and remove the sample back to the lab, the police chief and a patrol of officers blow through your front door, come up with a surgical saw, and amputate your leg anyway.
Did you have the cancer? Conventional wisdom says yes. Did all the doctors you had seen think you had cancer. Yes, but they needed to do some additional tests. If you DID have cancer, would the police be right to force you to amputate. Well, since it was contagious and posed a danger to the whole city, yes.
Did the mayor act properly in ordering your amputation just as the doctors were finally performing their tests?
posted
You might not want to include Dr. Powell in your analogy. He was one of the ones advising more tests.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is everyone blatantly forgetting as well that I have a History of cancer as well. I have had it before?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The exact same ones Bush, Cheney and Powell listed and YOU quoted.
I didn't quote any intelligence reports. All those I've read about merely said Saddam likely had WMDs, not that he definitely, without question had WMDs.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, we just don't think it warrants enough evidence by itself. Especially if you were a hypochondriac who did indeed have cancer before, but had been known to exaggerate your own sickness even to your closest friends, for the sympathy. Or, in this case, fear.
At what point are you going to cover all the holes in your analogy so we'll all throw up our hands and go, "Oh! Of course Mr. Bush was right all along! How silly of us!"
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Idemo, you are forgetting that there had already been 10 years of inconclusive tests before that. Waiting 10 years for results of whether the tumor is cancerous or not, then asking for another 10 years of tests to really verify is not a good way to deal with cancer. Cancer spreads. After 10 years of tests, it's time to make a decision IMHO. And it's better that the tumor is gone. Especially since I had cancer before.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, in your analogy you are deciding whether or not you should accpet a dangerous operation for your OWN body. Any direct risks or benefits affect you and you alone.
If we were conducting a war against Utah, your analogy might work. But in Iraq's case we were considering evidence for the invasion of another country. That is like you deciding whether someone ELSE should be operated on.
Making bad medical decisions for your own body is one thing, but forcing operations on others based on scant evidence is a completely different beast.
quote: At what point are you going to cover all the holes in your analogy so we'll all throw up our hands and go, "Oh! Of course Mr. Bush was right all along! How silly of us!"
I'd use a stronger word than "silly". Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah yes, the doctors have been allowed in your house before. But you have always kicked them out before they could actually perform the tests. This time the needle was actually IN your leg! They were taking a sample. The only reason you are allowing this, of course, is because you have half your local police force aiming sniper rifles at you from nearby rooftops, which seems to engender cooperation. Nobody is saying the mayor moved improperly by moving the police in to intimidate you. But if that intimidation was finally facilitating an unprecedented level of cooperation from you, the cancer guy, then they should have at least waited until the doctors were satisfied that there was, indeed, cancer in your leg before they chopped it off.
Amputation should ALWAYS be a last resort, of course.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The proper analogy is shopping doctors until you get one that'll give you a prescription to the narcotics you want.
USintelligence analysts did not say "Iraq probably possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction". Quite the opposite, they reported that Iraq nearly certainly did not possess WoMD capabilities.
However, the DubyaAdministration sent in three political appointees -- already known to have an agenda favoring war against Iraq -- to sift through the intelligence for information which might possibly lead one to believe that Iraq possessed WoMDs,no matter how dubious; and to censor/screen out any caveats, naysaying, and disproofs which would cast doubt on the allegations. Then they used those dubious reports by their own flunkies as if they were proven facts to try to convince others that the "intelligence" consisted of cold hard facts. And for the most part, they succeeded through "intelligence" "leaks" to politicians and the press.
posted
Aspectre, your claim is absolutely false in the wake of the 9/11 commission. Look it up and read it. Read the Butler report, because your claim is absurdly false to the level of being humorous.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This time the needle was actually IN your leg! They were taking a sample.
And sometimes a needle in the leg involves leaving a sample, an infusion, an injection.
Sometimes knowing that there is something bad in the leg comes from having put it there yourself...like how we handed the N. Koreans nuclear weapon technology on a silver platter, and how we gave the Chinese ICBM launch technology, and how we like to insert and support little Caesars in unstable countries.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if Godwin's law apply to Nazi aliens. I know Enterprise law does though:
Enterprise law: Any episode of Enterprise involving Nazi Aliens is crap, or, at least, crappier than other Enterprise episodes.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did, CStroman, at least the portions easily accessible through the Web. And you didn't. Just because you are too lazy to read the original reports and thus willing to have your thoughts formed by secondary reports written by neo"conservative" flakes hired solely for their willingness to lie through selective editing of quotations doesn't mean that their information is contextually true.
quote:This is turning into a very complicated analogy.
Indeed, but one thing should be clear in any of these analogies: If your doctor tells you that you definitely have cancer when you don't have cancer, and as a result you undergo a surgical operation that causes you serious damage and high medical expenses, then you should get a new doctor.
posted
How are you going to find a new doctor who is not entangled in the military/industrial complex or in the centralbank/EU/UN mess?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
If I work for a corporation and I heartily recommend a course of action based on rock hard facts that I have, that I swear by, and that are widely accepted, and they turn out to be wrong, then I'm out on my ear no matter whether I truly believed the facts or not. Especially if I was the driving force behind the action.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An analogy a teacher I had used was waaay simpler, and obviously covers only a fraction of the issues, but it goes like this:
"A student known to be dangerous walks into a class, his hands behind his back, and says he has a gun. Nobody can see behind his back."
The thing with this is it's the same thing. If you have a gun, you have a choice of whether to take him on his word and shoot him or to think he may be bluffing, I should get reinforcements.
It's a very simplistic view but for me it crystalized the potential dangers and uncertainties of a larger situation.
posted
I think we are all getting hysterical about each other. *feeble smile* EDIT to add : I thought we were way away from any politeness here for quite a time. And I'm not talking about this thread sepcifically. Not being rude when having passionate discussion is difficult sometimes, but I would like this board to stay special
[ October 12, 2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you have a gun, you have a choice of whether to take him on his word and shoot him
You have a gun, and you could shoot the known dangerous kid, but everybody else in the class hates your guts, so you wonder what the class' reaction will be if you get off the first shot. Better to let the known dangerous kid get off the first shot and hope his aim is bad.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many non-idiots do leave tumors in place and obt for nonsurgical proceedures - if an operation is too dangerous to make it worthwhile, or if there is not enough evidence that it is dangerous.
In the case of Iraq, both of these are true.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
