|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 08/15/2002 : 11:04:00 [Permalink]
|
The other problem with 'proof' is what it would take to satisfy people.
Look at the declassified U-2 photos taken over Cuba in the early 60's. Every picture is labelled. An erector here, the road network laying out an SA-2 Guidline site there, a Long-Track radar over there. Would you even know what you were looking at without the labels? No. My background is not in imagery analysis, so without a label, it's like a hog looking at a wristwatch. And I'll lay big odds I've seen more military satellite images than you.
So you don't trust the gov't to have proof enough for war, but you would trust that same government to correctly label a photo?
If Rumsfeld personally handed you a TS satellite image of a chemical weapons factory (which I doubt would have a big ass "CHEMICAL WEAPONS MADE HERE" sign on it) as you're proof, you would see a building. It's not your area of expertise to determine whether it's an Anthrax factory or a dairy. You have to rely on the squinter to interpret the image, the all source guy to identify equipment, packaging, and context. Context is very important. We had photos of SA-2 sites in Cuba arrayed in a Star of David configuration. SA-2's are just high altitude surface to air missiles. They were deployed all over the ComBloc. But an analyst knows that the SA-2's laid out with that particular design is used to protect Soviet nuclear weapons sites. Now did Kennedy give that whole explanation? No, he just told the American people the missiles were there and we nearly went to nuclear fucking war to get rid of them. But the people trusted the president and military and they were rewarded with Florida beachgoers not getting REALLY tan, really fast. Big bad US, huh?
So you don't trust the government to not engage in illegal aggression, but it'd all be okay if that same gov't suddenly produced 'proof'?
There's a whopping lot of proof we went to the moon, but there will always be people who will discount even the most credible source and call it a lie. So even given mounds of proof, some people just won't believe you anyway. So the fed doesn't bother to try. What's the point of giving up classified info to try to prove something to the public? You could open every safe in the pentagon to the public and there would still be no small amount of individuals that will simply refuse to believe otherwise. "They're hiding the UFO's, I swear."
So what's acceptable as 'proof'?
Proven to who? You? What if Cosmic String requires more proof than you?
And to what level does the fed need to jeopardize national security to justify a war against a dictator who has massacred thousands with chemical weapons already, to you? Just one multi-billion dollar satellite? One covert intercept team living in a hole in the sand to get that proof to you? One spy tortured and executed because the proof you require led the bad guys to him? Intel comes at a cost.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
 |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 11:17:58 [Permalink]
|
again, you are assuming responsibility for defining what is a credible threat to the US.
That's an awfully big leap, to have insight superior to the president and JCS.
I mean, considering that the entire CDC answers to them, giving input from the world's foremost bioweapons experts, they have the data from the world's most advanced intelligence collection systems and best analysts, diplomatic entourages meeting with foreign leaders, and the council of advisors and cabinet level commitees.
Man, you must really know your shit.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 11:53:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So you don't trust the government to not engage in illegal aggression, but it'd all be okay if that same gov't suddenly produced 'proof'?
That's right. And I never said they should justify national security. I simply said that there is no evidence that what they claim is true, whatever the reason (justified or not). And it is not illegal because they have not shown evidence. It is illegal because the President plans to go to war with no declaration from Congress. If you mean by "illegal" "unjustified," then it may be unjustified as far as I know. There is no evidence either way, so I see each possibility (justified and unjustified) as having equal merits.
quote:
There's a whopping lot of proof we went to the moon, but there will always be people who will discount even the most credible source and call it a lie. So even given mounds of proof, some people just won't believe you anyway. So the fed doesn't bother to try.
But there is evidence, and mountains of it, that we went to the moon. That's not an argument from authority (which, as I pointed out, carries no weight), it is a conclusion based on facts.
quote:
What's the point of giving up classified info to try to prove something to the public?
I never said they should give up classified information. But if they don't provide evidence - whatever the reason - there is no reason for anyone to believe them.
quote:
"They're hiding the UFO's, I swear."
This is very similar to your logic on this matter. You seem to think that because there is no concrete evidence to the contrary, it (Saddam having WMD he could use against the US) must be true.
quote:
So what's acceptable as 'proof'?
Proven to who? You? What if Cosmic String requires more proof than you?
And to what level does the fed need to jeopardize national security to justify a war against a dictator who has massacred thousands with chemical weapons already, to you? Just one multi-billion dollar satellite? One covert intercept team living in a hole in the sand to get that proof to you? One spy tortured and executed because the proof you require led the bad guys to him? Intel comes at a cost.
I never said they should jeopardize lives or national security. I simply said that I have no reason to believe any claim that Saddam has WMD capable of being used against the US unless I see real evidence for it.
You seem to combine both argument from authority and argument from ignorance on this subject. Just because Bush says Iraq could launch a WMD attack on the US (without providing evidence) does not mean it is true. And just because there isn't conclusive evidence to the contrary does not mean that it is proven correct. The last weapons inspections turned up nothing and, according to the inspectors, Iraq cooperated.
quote:
There are no declared wars anymore, so even approval from congress isn't really needed.
Wrong! War without Congressional declaration is still illegal. I don't care what weasel words Bush uses ('intervention', 'regional stabilization', etc.), war is war and it is illegal without Congress declaring war. The sad truth is that Congress and most of the American public are letting the Presidency use powers it is prohibited from exercising.
quote:
Of course it's from Authority. And those authorities don't have to share their intel with you.
No, they don't have to. But they can't expect me to believe them on their say-so. That's blind faith. Is this your sacred cow?
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire
{Edited to clarify my position}
Edited by - Cosmic String on 08/15/2002 11:55:19
{Edited to fix grammar errors}
Edited by - Cosmic String on 08/15/2002 11:57:34
Edited by - Cosmic String on 08/15/2002 11:59:22 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 12:42:00 [Permalink]
|
That is exactly why U.S. leaders must act in a responsible and ethical manner. If you want me to think you might be telling the truth and acting responsibly this time, then tell the truth and act responsibly all the time, and I might be more likely to think you are doing so this time.
U.S. leadership has shown no regard for human life or ethics, so why should we think they have the best interests of all concerned this time?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 12:43:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I hate to say it but Gorgo is right. There has been a lot of talk but no evidence has been shown. And recently the spin doctors have been throwing out that Iraq qill have the bomb in 5 years. That's a little hard to believe considering.
<img src="/forum/images/Abomb1.gif" border=0>@tomic<img src="/forum/images/Abomb1.gif" border=0>
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
While I agree that the concerns that the state department and the UN does not justify a ground war, it does not preclude the existance of WMDs. The head of the UN makes mention of Iraq interfering with weapons inspections. Military strikes or other pressures can be brought to bear on Iraq. A ground war would be counter-productive. While I think that an Iraqi atomic weapon is further off than five years, chemical and biological weapons are much closer. He could use these to harm his neighbors. (He currently lacks a delivery mechanism to the US.)
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 13:44:12 [Permalink]
|
No sacred cows for me. I have pretty radical views on our government. But you guys just keep yelling there is no proof when neither of you are in a position to know the slightest bit of the truth. Watching CNN doesn't make you a UN ambassador.
You say, very specifically, there is no proof. I say you are wholly unqualified to claim that simply because you do not attend the JCS Morning Brief. You're no different from ufo believers that 'know' there are UFOs at Groom Lake, even though they'd be shot for even stepping on the property. You know because you heard it on TV.
I'm not arguing there is positively evidence that's just classified. I'm not in a position to know. I think you have no concept of global intelligence if you don't think there are REAMS of stuff we've compiled on Iraq. You either think Saddam is all peaches and cream, which is stupid, or you woefully underestimate our collection capabilities.
Iraq is forced to run his WMD program in extreme secrecy. That means any way we have of getting evidence is going to be highly classified. A basic intel precept is what we know is as important as how we know. Presenting such blatant evidence would alert the Iraqis that we knew, and they could change their program to foil that source.
Even given a folder marked 'evidence' wouldn't satisfy you. First, final intel products are a combination of data from different sources, cross referenced and checked, so there simply isn't one 'smoking gun' document. It's a process. It's not a matter of 'this here poloroid shows them Iraqis with cans marked Anthrax getting loaded onto Fed Ex trucks'. It'd be impossible to fully explain the entirety of the 'evidence'.
On top of that you have to trust the same government officials you accuse of illegal aggression (a war crime) to give you the 'evidence' to validate their actions. Hell man, Hitler had 'proof'.
No, I don't believe that would satisfy you either. You would just jump on the conspiracy bandwagon that the evidence was somehow doctored or faked. Having no experience of your own, you wouldn't know fake intel if it was labelled so. If that's your litmus test, then the gov't could hand you any piece of paper, call it a transcription of voice intercepts of Saddam ordering babies be used to test Anthrax. Instant evidence and justification. UFO types don't believe Project Blue Book, even when the air force handed the whole enchilada over to the public.
The president and the JCS, have looked at the evidence (all that good stuff you don't even know exists) and determined there is a threat to the US posed by Iraq's current regime. They've given what evidence they can while being conscious of national security.
Who are you to arbitrarily claim it insufficient? You have no definition of what 'evidence' would be sufficient, and no concept of the complexity of things that go into the making of a single sentance from an analyist. "Mr. President, we believe Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction".
You want evidence, but don't know what the evidence would be. Suspicious chemical purchases from international manufacturers? Caught him doing that with a firm in Germany. How about developing a long range "supergun" that could lob an NBC weapon on Israel? It was nearly complete when the engineer designing it (a US citizen) died. Lack of proof?
You can argue intel down to whether the squinter misidentified a barrell of oil for Anthrax in a photo. So exactly where do we draw the line as to what is conclusive proof?
What source should the proof come from? You think our government can't be trusted not to commit war crimes, yet you look to them for proof of validity for thier actions. That makes no sense. Can't have foreign countries or the UN do it as they don't have access to our intelligence.
Whether you believe Bush when he tells you there is a threat, or you see some 'evidence' provided from the government you hate so much, or a psychic on CNN tells you- at some point you have to take it on faith that you're being told the truth, or as much as they can tell you.
But the president is doing nothing illegal (again, you bandy about a term incorrectly) about invading, bombing, or occupying Iraq without Congressional mandate. We did not declare war on Vietnam, and no congressional vote was required to send massive numbers of troops there. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution strengthened the presidents powers to wage non-declared war. Nor did we declare war on Afghanistan or the Taliban prior to taking over that country. If it were 'illegal' every president since WW II would be incarcerated.
I think we need to think carefully about an invasion too. I'm not in any hurry to send US soldiers to die in that shit-hole. The whole of the country isn't worth one American life. But I am also not deluded enough to perceive Saddam Hussein as anything but a very real, very dangerous threat.
Like I said, even if he doesn't sell WMD to terrorists directly (The Sunni government of Iraq is not as well liked by Shiite terror groups), they can still not secure them either. One of the problems of secrecy is lack of records to track such things as inventory, access, etc. So we cannot discount that even if Saddam isn't using them, or is threatening the US, they could be stolen, bought (from military officials that oppose Saddam), or hijacked by terror groups that will use them against the US.
As long as Iraq has or develops WMD, we are threatened. As long as Saddam is running Iraq, he will continue a WMD program. It's just that simple, man.
Besides, if we topple his greasy ass, you can bet we'll install a friendlier government and we will pour gobs of money into the place rebuilding the country. The Afghan people are loving us right now. We've built schools, sent millions in books and relief supplies, opened up the way for NGO's to come in. Yeah, real repression, especially after the Taliban. The people there don't care about our moral legitimacy because of 9/11. They don't give a damn about the 'rightness' of an action. They simply knew that some real scumbags were holding the country hostage at gunpoint. Saddam is doing just the same. He murdered any political opposition that spoke out, he murdered people in his own faction to lead it. This guy (at the head of the Baath party) seized the country in a coup. Even Hitler was elected- Saddam can't even claim that much.
For 'proof' of that, look no further than the leader of the Iraqi Opposition Party (exiled here in America) who has been all over CNN saying that the people (the ones you align yourself with, though I've doubt you've ever met one) of Iraq desperatly want Saddam and his death squads gone. If proof, or even truth, can come from CNN, then would that do?
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 13:52:42 [Permalink]
|
So, you believe everything politicians tell you. Good. That makes you wise. Good.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 14:14:04 [Permalink]
|
jeezus, what an over-simplification. No, I don't believe everything they say. I'm highly critical of alot of our nations policies- see my other posts on SFN.
You will blindly follow whatever 'evidence' that same government may have. All I'm doing is taking the word of the guy who's read all the evidence and been briefed by many top analysts. The only difference is that I'm not demanding the gov't to present me with what the analyst had to draw his conclusion. You're just selecting a source a couple levels down the chain. You're being skeptical of Bush, not the information that he was briefed on that brought him to the conclusion that we need a regime change in Iraq. If that same evidence (which comes in the form of a verbal briefing usually) the president got was suddenly made open to you, this would be proof enough for you?
That's not taking issue with the truth, it's just not liking Bush and wanting to second guess him nd pin a war hawk label on him.
I'm all for questioning what the gov't says.
But you don't question it, you disregard it entirely and cling to a conspiracy that this is all just about.... well what? If all the WMD, humans rights violations, mass killings, and death squads aren't the cause for Bush to want to topple Saddam- just what is the reason?
You seem to know so much about the validity and existance of evidence you're not authorized to see. I'd like to hear your conspiracy theory on why we're "really" going after Saddam?
Of course, I'll require some proof on your part......
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 14:52:57 [Permalink]
|
So, I'm over-simplifying, and everyone that disagrees with you rejects the Holocaust. Don't think so.
There is no reason for an all-out war. There is no reason for anyone to die. You think there is a problem in the Middle East? You're right. The U.S. needs to stop defending Israel's terrorism, and stop propping up dictators. You want peace in the area, get someone to work towards peace, not war.
quote:
jeezus, what an over-simplification.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 15:08:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
While I think that an Iraqi atomic weapon is further off than five years, chemical and biological weapons are much closer. He could use these to harm his neighbors. (He currently lacks a delivery mechanism to the US.)
Week before last I visited the WTC. It's a big, very clean, hole in the ground.
As long as there are airlines, RORO ships, and sixteen wheelers on the highways he has a delivery mechanism to the US.
When it absolutely positively has to be there over night Fed Ex and a couple of Zealots can deliver any NCB weapons you want. Who needs an ICBM when you have UPS?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 08/15/2002 15:09:47 |
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 15:31:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No sacred cows for me. I have pretty radical views on our government. But you guys just keep yelling there is no proof when neither of you are in a position to know the slightest bit of the truth.... You say, very specifically, there is no proof. I say you are wholly unqualified to claim that simply because you do not attend the JCS Morning Brief. You're no different from ufo believers that 'know' there are UFOs at Groom Lake, even though they'd be shot for even stepping on the property. You know because you heard it on TV.
STRAW MAN! No, I don't say there is no proof. I say I have seen no proof and therefore have no reason to believe there is evidence, just as I have no reason to 'know' there really isn't. I am not given any evidence to base my decision on, whether that is justified or not. I therefore cannot accept any action based on either of those dubious assumptions. But the burden of proof is on the claimant. That is why I won't believe either that there is evidence for the WMD or that there are UFOs. You assume that because no evidence is presented, there must be secret evidence. That is the same as the UFO nuts.
quote:
I think you have no concept of global intelligence if you don't think there are REAMS of stuff we've compiled on Iraq.
Of course we have "reams" of stuff on Iraq, but I have no reason to believe that those reams include proof of WMD.
quote:
You either think Saddam is all peaches and cream, which is stupid, or you woefully underestimate our collection capabilities.
STRAW MAN part 2. Saddam is a bad man and has committed atrocities against his own people. But it says nothing of our "collegtion capabilities" to refuse to accept evidence I have not seen and may not exist. It simply means that I have seen no evidence and therefore must not assume it exists (but that doesn't mean assuming it does not exist).
quote:
But the president is doing nothing illegal (again, you bandy about a term incorrectly) about invading, bombing, or occupying Iraq without Congressional mandate. We did not declare war on Vietnam, and no congressional vote was required to send massive numbers of troops there. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution strengthened the presidents powers to wage non-declared war. Nor did we declare war on Afghanistan or the Taliban prior to taking over that country. If it were 'illegal' every president since WW II would be incarcerated.
Illegal doesn't mean enforced. No amendment was made to the Constitution regarding this, and it explicitly states that war may not be waged without a declaration of war by Congress, unless the US is under imminent threat (i.e., we are being invaded). There is no immenent threat to the US as far as I know, and if Congress doesn't see fit to declare war, that will do nothing to help your claims.
quote:
I think we need to think carefully about an invasion too. I'm not in any hurry to send US soldiers to die in that shit-hole. The whole of the country isn't worth one American life. But I am also not deluded enough to perceive Saddam Hussein as anything but a very real, very dangerous threat.
Agreed. But while he is a real, dangerous threat, I do not see him as an imminent threat to the US. To other countries, yes, he is an imminent threat to them all the time. An invasion could cause serious problems in the region. Most likely, based on history, we would install a friendly government to carry out our policies. Regardless of whether this new government would be good (as I'm sure it would be) or bad for Iraquis and the middle east, it will enrage terrorist groups and perhaps anger many moderates in the region over what they perceive as "American imperialism." If these people didn't carry this delusion around, an invasion would surely be safer in the long run, though still not something that should be definitely done.
quote:
As long as Iraq has or develops WMD, we are threatened. As long as Saddam is running Iraq, he will continue a WMD program. It's just that simple, man.
But do the have WMD? If not, we need to formulate a plan to prevent him from succeeding in developing them again instead of invading. If so, we need to invade, but being extremely careful to neutalize the WMD before invading, lest he use them on our troops.
quote:
Besides, if we topple his greasy ass, you can bet we'll install a friendlier government and we will pour gobs of money into the place rebuilding the country. The Afghan people are loving us right now. We've built schools, sent millions in books and relief supplies, opened up the way for NGO's to come in. Yeah, real repression, especially after the Taliban. The people there don't care about our moral legitimacy because of 9/11. They don't give a damn about the 'rightness' of an action. They simply knew that some real scumbags were holding the country hostage at gunpoint. Saddam is doing just the same. He murdered any political opposition that spoke out, he murdered people in his own faction to lead it. This guy (at the head of the Baath party) seized the country in a coup. Even Hitler was elected- Saddam can't even claim that much.
No matter how much better our installed, friendly government is for the Iraqui people, other nations and groups in the region will be further angered. As I pointed out, some moderates in other middle eastern countries could be drawn to extremism in the wake of toppling Saddam. If we are going to do that, we must try our best to have as many middle eastern countries behind us as possible.
quote:
For 'proof' of that, look no further than the leader of the Iraqi Opposition Party (exiled here in America) who has been all over CNN saying that the people (the ones you align yourself with, though I've doubt you've ever met one) of Iraq desperatly want Saddam and his death squads gone.
I agree that he has brutally oppressed and tormented his 'subjects' and that they hate it. They want |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 16:33:39 [Permalink]
|
All the more reason not to continue to kill and impoverish his subjects.
quote:
[I agree that he has brutally oppressed and tormented his 'subjects' and that they hate it.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2002 : 18:25:08 [Permalink]
|
Exactly. If you want to bomb countries that have people in them that want to kill other people, you'll be killing a lot of people.
quote:
Week before last I visited the WTC. It's a big, very clean, hole in the ground.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 03:06:08 [Permalink]
|
I just saw an article written about Condoleeza Rice, and she makes no claims of finding any evidence of imminent attacks or even any real threats other than they know that "he" is working towards gaining weapons of mass destruction, "he" has used weapons of mass destruction, and "he" will someday use them to rule the world and make everyone paint their butts green. Is this wrong, is anyone claiming that Iraq has ICBM's trained on Omaha?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 04:26:37 [Permalink]
|
Just read an article in the times about Republicans who are disagreeing with the President's war talk.
"Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/international/middleeast/16IRAQ.html
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
